United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A. WOODCOCK, JR. JUDGE
Court denies an inmate's motion to reconsider its denial
of his motion for the Court to order reimbursement of certain
costs the inmate incurred in pursuing various legal actions
because the inmate failed to demonstrate that his case is one
of the rare cases where such reimbursement is warranted.
February 6, 2018, Robert Goguen moved this Court to appoint
counsel to represent him in his pending motion, filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence (ECF No. 205). On February 8, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge denied the motion. Order Denying Mot. to Appoint
Counsel (ECF No. 206). On February 21, 2018, Mr. Goguen
filed a motion objecting to the order and requesting
reconsideration thereof. Obj. to Order Denying
Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 208). In these
circumstances, a request for reconsideration is directed to
the Magistrate Judge who issued the order and an objection is
directed to the assigned District Judge, so Mr. Goguen's
motion was forwarded first to the Magistrate Judge for
reconsideration. On February 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
denied the motion for reconsideration. Order (ECF
No. 212). On February 26, 2018, the Court reviewed Mr.
Goguen's objection under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, concluding
that it was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Order (ECF No. 213).
February 21, 2018, Mr. Goguen moved the Court to pay certain
expenses that he has incurred in proceeding with his various
legal matters. Def.'s Mot. for Funds (ECF No.
209). The expenses include those associated with mailings,
photocopying, and telephone calls. Id. On February
23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge denied his motion.
Order (ECF No. 211). On March 20, 2018, Mr. Goguen
objected to the Magistrate Judge's Order. Def.'s
Objection to Order Denying Mot. for Funds (ECF No. 219).
On April 4, 2018, the Court overruled Mr. Goguen's
objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order. Order
Overruling Obj. to the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF
No. 224). On April 10, 2018, Mr. Goguen moved for
reconsideration. Reconsideration of District Judge's
Order in Denying Mot. for Funds (ECF No. 225)
Motion for Reconsideration
motion for reconsideration, Mr. Goguen attempts to address
one of the Court's observations in its order overruling
his objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order-a lack of
legal authority for his position. Def.'s Mot. at
1-2. He cites section 3.2 of the treatise Federal Habeas
Corpus Practice and Procedure, which speaks of procedures for
indigent federal habeas petitioners “to hire and to
secure compensation for court-funded investigators, expert
witnesses, and other providers of support services.”
Id. at 2 (citing Randy Hertz & James S. Liebman,
Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 3.2 (7th
ed. 2017)). Mr. Goguen suggests that “support
services” encompasses services he has availed himself
of in his own representation, including photocopies,
telephone calls, and postage. Def.'s Mot. at
2-3. He states that he “believe[s] the Court has the
authority to act upon [his] request for funds” to pay
for such services. Id. at 3.
Legal Standard under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A
Goguen suggests that his proposal-to have the Court cover
costs arising out of his pro se representation-“is much
cheaper” than appointment of counsel to represent him.
Id. at 3. He is undoubtedly correct; nevertheless,
the standard the Court must apply in evaluating his request
is the same it applied in evaluating his prior request for a
lawyer. The Guide to Judiciary Policy addresses this:
(a) Persons who are eligible for representation under the
CJA, but who have elected to proceed pro se, may, upon
request, be authorized to obtain investigative, expert, and
other services in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e).
(b) The court should authorize subsection (e) services for
pro se litigants and review and approve resulting claims in
the same manner as is its practice with respect to requests
made by CJA panel attorneys. However, in matters for which
appointment of counsel is discretionary under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(a)(2), the court should make a threshold
determination that the case is one in which the interests of
justice would have required the furnishing of representation.
7A Guide to Judiciary Policy § 310.10.30 (a)-(b) (May
17, 2017). Mr. Goguen continues to proceed pro se after
having sought and been denied counsel for failure to ...