McGary v. Linquist

W.D. Washington

McGary v. Linquist

DecidedApril 12, 2024

Docket3:22-cv-05809

StatusUnknown

This text of McGary v. Linquist (McGary v. Linquist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGary v. Linquist, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 DARNELL OTIS MCGARY, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05809-JHC 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 MARK LINQUIST, 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on what appears to be a motion by pro se Petitioner 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Dkt. # 35. The motion lacks merit. 16 To recap some of the procedural history here, Petitioner claims that the requirement that 17 he register as a sex offender renders him “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 18 2254(a). Dkt. # 23. On April 10, 2023, Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura issued a report and 19 recommendation, concluding that the Court should dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter 20 jurisdiction. Id. Petitioner objected. Dkt. ## 24, 25 & 26. On May 8, 2023, the Court adopted 21 Judge Creatura’s report and recommendation and denied a certificate of appealability. Dkt. # 27. 22 On May 15, 2023, Petitioner sought to appeal this Court’s decision. Dkt. # 30. 23 24 1 On January 17, 2024, the Court of Appeals also denied Petitioner’s request for a 2 certificate of appealability because he did not show “that ‘jurists of reason would find it 3 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 4 |{Jjurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 5 |\tuling.’” Dkt. #33 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and citing 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2253(c)(2), and Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012)). On February 1, the Court 7 of Appeals denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 34. The court wrote, “No 8 further filings will be entertained in this closed case.” Jd. 9 Because Petitioner raises no valid ground for Rule 60 relief, the Court DENIES the 10 || motion. 1] Dated this 12th day of April, 2024. Joka Chua 13 John H.Chun United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 DARNELL OTIS MCGARY, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05809-JHC 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 MARK LINQUIST, 11 Respondent. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on what appears to be a motion by pro se Petitioner 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Dkt. # 35. The motion lacks merit. 16 To recap some of the procedural history here, Petitioner claims that the requirement that 17 he register as a sex offender renders him “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 18 2254(a). Dkt. # 23. On April 10, 2023, Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura issued a report and 19 recommendation, concluding that the Court should dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter 20 jurisdiction. Id. Petitioner objected. Dkt. ## 24, 25 & 26. On May 8, 2023, the Court adopted 21 Judge Creatura’s report and recommendation and denied a certificate of appealability. Dkt. # 27. 22 On May 15, 2023, Petitioner sought to appeal this Court’s decision. Dkt. # 30. 23 24 1 On January 17, 2024, the Court of Appeals also denied Petitioner’s request for a 2 certificate of appealability because he did not show “that ‘jurists of reason would find it 3 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 4 |{Jjurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 5 |\tuling.’” Dkt. #33 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and citing 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2253(c)(2), and Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012)). On February 1, the Court 7 of Appeals denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 34. The court wrote, “No 8 further filings will be entertained in this closed case.” Jd. 9 Because Petitioner raises no valid ground for Rule 60 relief, the Court DENIES the 10 || motion. 1] Dated this 12th day of April, 2024. Joka Chua 13 John H.Chun United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McGary v. Linquist, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgary-v-linquist-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack