Jose Carmen Murill Garcia v. John N Katavich et al

Filing 3

ORDER RE "MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL" by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. On 7/8/14, Jose Carmen Murill Garcia, a state prisoner, filed a "Motion and Declaration For Appointment of Counsel". Mr. Garcia's Motion is insufficient to commence a habeas proceeding in this Court. Accordingly, the Motion is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

JOSE CARMEN MURILL GARCIA,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN N. KATAVICH, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

NO. CV 14-5262-PSG(E)

ORDER RE “MOTION AND
DECLARATION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL”

16
17
18

On July 8, 2014, Jose Carmen Murill Garcia, a state prisoner,

19

filed a “Motion and Declaration For Appointment of Counsel”

20

(“Motion”).

21

of habeas corpus in this Court, seeks the appointment of counsel to

22

file such a petition.

23

for first degree murder.

24

1173, 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 23 (2014).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Mr. Garcia, who has not yet filed a petition for a writ

Mr. Garcia currently is serving a life sentence
See People v. Garcia, 223 Cal. App. 4th

1

Unlike a capital prisoner who may commence a habeas corpus

2

proceeding by filing a request for the appointment of counsel,1 a non-

3

capital prisoner must initiate a habeas corpus proceeding by filing a

4

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254.

5

Calderon v. United States District Court for the Northern District of

6

California (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996), cert.

7

denied, 520 U.S. 1233 (1997); see also Mayfield v. McEwen, 2010 WL

8

3955788, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (non-capital prisoner could

9

not commence habeas proceeding by filing a motion for an order

See

10

permitting prisoner to make copies of exhibits at prison law library);

11

Sexton v. McDonald, 2009 WL 3401264, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009)

12

(filing of motion to toll habeas statute of limitations did not

13

initiate habeas proceeding in non-capital case).

14

is insufficient to commence a habeas proceeding in this Court.

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

Mr. Garcia’s Motion

27
1

28

See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2); McFarland v. Scott, 512
U.S. 849, 856-57 (1994).
2

1

Accordingly, the Motion is denied and the action is dismissed without

2

prejudice.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: July 17, 2014.

7
8

_________________________________
PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11

Presented this 15th day

12

of July, 2014 by:

13
14
15

_____________/S/_______________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3