Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05594/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05594-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Silvia Garcia
Respondent
Gerald L. Tucker
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD L. TUCKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

SILVIA GARCIA, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:03-cv-05594-AWI-JLT HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 52)

Petitioner commenced this legal odyssey by filing his habeas petition on May 12, 2003,

challenging an April 6, 1998 conviction in the Fresno County Superior Court for failure to register

as a sex offender and the subsequent thirty-two month sentence. (Doc. 1). On December 29, 2003,

the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition because Petitioner no

longer met the “in custody” requirement for federal habeas jurisdiction. (Doc. 21). On February

24, 2004, the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations, dismissed the petition,

and entered judgment. (Docs. 27 & 28). Thereafter, Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and

the Court’s own docket indicates that on April 7, 2004, the Ninth Circuit notified this Court that

it had refused to issue a certificate of appealability for Petitioner to proceed in that court. (Doc.

39). 

Over five years elapsed before Petitioner attempted to revive this now-defunct case. On 

June 24, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order, apparently seeking an order preventing

Case 1:03-cv-05594-AWI-TAG Document 53 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Respondent from withdrawing money from his prison trust account for some kind of unspecified

restitution payment. (Doc. 40). That same date, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of

the 2004 order dismissing his petition. (Doc. 41). In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner

indicates that Respondent is attempting to collect restitution from Petitioner in the amount of $600. 

(Doc. 41, p. 3). On July 30, 2009, Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 47). 

The Court denied all of Petitioner’s motions on August 10, 2009. (Docs. 48 & 49). Shortly

thereafter, on August 19, 2009, Petitioner again moved for the appointment of counsel, and on

August 26, 2009, the Court again denied Petitioner’s request. (Docs. 50 & 51). On September 21,

2009, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 26, 2009 denial

of his motion for appointment of counsel in this now-closed case. (Doc. 52). In the motion for

reconsideration, Petitioner contends that he is a seventy-three year old inmate who suffered a

stroke on February 27, 2009, the he is partially paralyzed, that he is unable to care for himself, that

he is unskilled in the law, and that he is unable to afford an attorney. (Id.). 

Although Petitioner paints a sympathetic portrait of someone who has been

institutionalized for many years, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration misses the key point: the 

underlying petition was dismissed six years ago and the case is closed. There is no further activity

in this case except for Petitioner’s repeated requests for counsel. Petitioner has never identified

why he needs an attorney for a closed case or, if an attorney were appointed, what potential legal

proceedings that attorney might file in this case.

1

As the Court has explained to Petitioner many times, there currently exists no absolute

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d

479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment

Once the petition was dismissed for failure to meet the “in custody” requirement, the case was 1

concluded, the file was closed, and no further action was contemplated by this Court. If Petitioner has

concerns about issues related to his 1998 conviction that were not raised in the original petition in this

case, he must file a new and separate legal proceeding in the appropriate court. He cannot simply

continue to file motions in a case that is closed.

2

Case 1:03-cv-05594-AWI-TAG Document 53 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of

justice require the appointment of counsel. Indeed, it is difficult for the Court to imagine under

what circumstances the interests of justice would require the appointment of counsel for a case that

was dismissed six years ago and for which Petitioner has completed his period of incarceration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration

(Doc. 52), which the Court construes as a successive request for appointment of counsel, is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 1:03-cv-05594-AWI-TAG Document 53 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3