Erick Daniel Gonzalez v. A Hedgpeth

Filing 54

ORDER Granting Petitioner's Request For An Extension Of Time To File Objections (Doc. 53 ), Deadline: Forty-Five (45) Days, ORDER Granting Petitioner's Request For Copies And Directing The Clerk To Send Copies to Petitioner (Doc. 53 ), ORDER Denying Petitioner's Request For The Appointment Of Counsel (Doc. 53 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/6/2015. (Objections to F&R due by 6/26/2015) (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ERIK DANIEL GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:12-cv-001244-LJO-BAM-HC 12 13 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS (DOC. 53) 14 DEADLINE: FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS 15 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR COPIES AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SEND COPIES TO PETITIONER (DOC. 53) v. 16 17 18 A. HEDGPETH, Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 53) 19 20 Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 24 On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 25 recommendations to deny Petitioner’s stay motion, and on March 12, 26 2015, Petitioner was granted an extension of time to file 27 objections. 28 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s renewed request for an 1 1 extension of time to file objections and for copies of his petition 2 and the docket, as well as his motion for the appointment of counsel 3 to help Petitioner file objections. 4 I. Order Granting the Motion for an Extension of Time 5 Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s motion for an extension of 6 time is GRANTED. Petitioner’s objections are due no later than 7 forty-five (45) days after the date of service of this order. 8 II. Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Copies 9 Petitioner informs the Court that he has lost his petition and 10 other legal papers as a result of a cell search conducted by his 11 custodians, and he needs a copy of the petition and of the Court’s 12 docket in this matter in order to prepare his objections to the 13 findings and recommendations. 14 Although this Court does not customarily provide copies to 15 parties, in view of the unique circumstances of the present request 16 in this case, Petitioner’s receipt of a copy of the petition and 17 docket in this matter will facilitate resolution of this case. 18 Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for copies is GRANTED, and it 19 is ORDERED that the Clerk send to Petitioner with this order a copy 20 of the petition (doc. 1), including all attachments, and a copy of 21 the Court’s docket in this case. 22 III. Order Denying the Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel to help him file 24 objections and to represent him at an evidentiary hearing. 25 There currently exists no absolute right to the appointment of 26 counsel in non-capital, federal habeas corpus proceedings. 27 McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 857 n.3 (1994); Miranda v. Castro, 28 292 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 2 1 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958). The Sixth 2 Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions, 3 which are civil in nature. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 4 (9th Cir.1986); Anderson, 258 F.2d at 481. 5 However, a Magistrate Judge may appoint counsel at any stage of 6 a habeas corpus proceeding if the interests of justice require it. 7 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 8 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules). A 9 district court evaluates the likelihood of a petitioner’s success on 10 the merits and the ability of a petitioner to articulate his claims 11 pro se in light of the complexity of the of the legal issues 12 involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). A 13 district court abuses its discretion in denying an indigent’s 14 request for appointed counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g) if 15 appointment of counsel is necessary to prevent due process 16 violations, such as when the case is so complex that due process 17 violations will occur absent the presence of counsel. Bonin v. 18 Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Chaney, 801 F.2d 19 at 1196). Factors considered in various cases include the number of 20 claims, the nature and substance of the issues (difficulty, novelty, 21 need for further briefing), the stage of the proceedings, and 22 pertinent circumstances concerning the condition of the petitioner 23 (mental health issues, diagnoses, treatment, medical history) and 24 the petitioner’s ability to proceed with the action. 25 Here, in light of the nature of the issues before the Court and 26 the stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes that the interests 27 of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. 28 /// 3 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for the 2 appointment of counsel is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: /s/ Barbara May 6, 2015 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?