Vieira v. Ylst

Filing 140

ORDER DENYING Motion for Hearing 139 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/12/14: Petitioner's counsel are directed to provide him with a copy of this order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD JOHN VIEIRA,
Petitioner,

12
13

Case No. 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
HEARING

v.
(ECF No. 139)

14

KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Acting Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,

15
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Petitioner is represented in this action by Wesley A. Van Winkle, Esq., of the Law
Offices of Wesley A. Van Winkle, and Timothy J. Foley, Esq., of the Office of the Federal
Defender.

Petitioner’s claims have been briefed by the parties and are currently under

submission. On August 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for a hearing alleging a conflict of
interest with his appointed counsel and District Judge Anthony W. Ishii due to the “excessive
delays” that the State of California has created in all capital cases.
Petitioner’s complaint does not raise a lack of communication with his attorneys or
mishandling of the merits of his substantive claims. As petitioner was advised in the order
issued May 25, 2012 by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, the claims raised are “not a bona fide
conflict of interest. Rather, it is an attempt to present substantive claims to the Court which
Vieira’s attorneys have not raised.” (ECF No. 127 at 5.) Further, “even if this Court believed

28
1

1 the California State Court system were flawed, it is without authority to provide a remedy.
2 Finally, the claim Vieira wishes to pursue is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus.” (Id.)
As Petitioner has previously been advised, Local Rule 191 of the Local Rules of the

3

4 Eastern District provides that the Court will generally not consider pro se documents about the
5 presentation of the case where the party is represented by counsel. L.R. 191(d). Petitioner’s
6 motion does not allege an actual conflict with counsel and for that reason it is denied. Further,
7 the Ninth Circuit has addressed Petitioner’s argument regarding the Court’s handling of his pro
8 se filings. (ECF No. 135.) Petitioner’s allegation that the delay in his case is excessive does not
9 demonstrate a conflict of interest with the Court.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for a

10

11 hearing is DENIED. Petitioner’s counsel are directed to provide him with a copy of this order.
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated:

August 12, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2