Eccarius v. Mendocino County Social Services

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY CARL ECCARIUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MENDOCINO COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-05417-HSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
REOPEN
Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 25
Petitioner Anthony Carl Eccarius filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 13, 2022, the Court dismissed this action for lack of
federal habeas jurisdiction because Petitioner was not in custody, and denied a certificate of
appealability. Dkt. No. 6. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the dismissal in both the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 14-16. Despite
the case being closed, Petitioner continues to file pleadings in this case, all of which fail to address
the jurisdictional issue that was the basis for dismissal. Dkt. Nos. 18-28.
Petitioner has filed a motion to reopen this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing
that “ongoing and escalating constitutional violations stemming from executive overreach, now
manifesting through the operation of a newly created federal entity – the Department of
Government Efficiency (“DOGE”)” require that this case be reopened to address the structural
denial of his rights under the 10th and 14th Amendments. Dkt. No. 24. Petitioner’s motion to
reopen does not address the jurisdictional issue that was the basis for dismissal of this action.
Petitioner cannot seek relief for constitutional violations in a federal habeas petition when he is not
in custody and the purported constitutional violations are unrelated to his custody. The Court
therefore DENIES Petitioner’s request to reopen this case. Dkt. No. 24. As this case remains

2
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
Northern District of California
closed, the Court DENIES as moot Petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order against
DOGE. Dkt. No. 25. Any future filings which raise issues unrelated to the jurisdictional issue
that was the basis for dismissal of this action will be summarily denied.
This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
1/23/2026