Parker v. Martin, No. 23-6088 (10th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Appellate Case: 23-6088 Document: 010110945506 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ ALVIN PARKER, Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 2, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY MARTIN, Warden, No. 23-6088 (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-01365-D) (W.D. Okla.) Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Alvin Parker appeals from the district court’s order denying his pro se Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Parker sought appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court allowing it to review this court’s decision in Parker v. Martin, No. 23-6033, 2023 WL 3335309 (10th Cir. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 23-6088 Document: 010110945506 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 2 May 10, 2023) (denying Parker a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and dismissing his appeal from the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion). This court has subject matter jurisdiction over Parker’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009) (holding that an appellant need not obtain a COA to appeal a district court order denying a request for appointment of counsel); see also generally Graff v. Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc., 65 F.4th 500, 507 n.6 (10th Cir. 2023) (explaining the meaning of “subject matter jurisdiction”). Nevertheless, because this appeal is moot, we lack Article III jurisdiction. Accordingly, Parker’s appeal is, hereby, dismissed. For those reasons set out by this court in United States v. Reynoso, No. 222119, 2023 WL 3017136, at *3–4 (10th Cir. April 20, 2023) (unpublished disposition), Parker’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel is moot. Although Reynoso is unpublished and, therefore, not binding on this panel, we conclude its analysis is entirely persuasive and adopt it in full. This court further notes the following considerations in relation to the arguments set out in Parker’s reply brief. Although the motion for appointment of counsel in Reynoso was moot when it was filed in the district court, see id., the requirement of a live case or controversy persists through each stage of litigation. Fleming v. Gutierrez, 785 F.3d 442, 445 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, we must dismiss the case, rather than 2 Appellate Case: 23-6088 Document: 010110945506 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 3 issue an advisory opinion.” (quotation omitted)). Here, just such an event occurred— the ninety-day statutory time limit for filing a certiorari petition, along with the sixtyday for-good-cause extension period, expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c); see also Fed. Election Comm’n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88, 90 (1994) (holding that the statutory time limits set out in § 2101(c) are jurisdictional). In that regard, the conclusion this appeal is moot is even stronger than in Reynoso, a criminal case involving time limits set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, rather than statutory time limits. See Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 63–64 (1970) (holding that time limits set out in the Court’s own rules are subject to waiver); see also R. of U.S. Sup. Ct. 13(2) (“The Clerk will not file any petition for a writ of certiorari that is jurisdictionally out of time. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c).”). Parker’s assertion Reynoso’s analysis does not apply because he filed in the Supreme Court on July 27, 2023, a motion for extension of time to file a certiorari petition is unavailing for two reasons. First, the jurisdictional time limit set out in § 2101(c) has run and Parker does not allege he received the requested extension. Second, there exists no indication on the Supreme Court’s docket it ever received such a request for extension. For those reasons set out above, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Because this appeal is moot, all pending motions are DENIED. Entered for the Court Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.