McGary v. Linquist

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA DARNELL OTIS MCGARY, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05809-JHC Petitioner, ORDER v. MARK LINQUIST, Respondent.

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