Watkins v. Muniz, et al.

Filing 31

ORDER Granting 29 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/8/17. Attorney Carolyn D. Phillips terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ERIC MARK WATKINS,

5

Petitioner,

6
7
8

v.

(Doc. 29)
Respondents.

10

12

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO WITHDRAW AS
ATTORNEY OF RECORD

W.L. MUNIZ, Warden, and XAVIER
BECERRA,

9

11

No. 1:16-cv-00749-AWI-SKO HC

On May 31, 2016, Petitioner Eric Mark Watkins, a state prisoner proceeding pro se filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contended that he had
completed the seven-year term to which he was sentenced in 2002. Respondent filed a motion to

13
14
15

dismiss the petition on July 18, 2016, alleging that the petition was too vague and conclusory to
state a cognizable claim. Petitioner responded with a motion for appointment of counsel,

16

providing documentation of a developmental disability that limits his ability to read, write, and

17

understand legal materials. After taking notice of Petitioner’s many unsuccessful attempts to

18

prosecute a habeas petition, on the Court appointed the Federal Defendant as counsel for

19

Petitioner.

20
On April 23, 2017, Petitioner filed a response conceding that no evidence existed to
21
22

support Petitioner’s claim that he had completed his sentence but had not been released from

23

prison. After reviewing the record and applicable law, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

24

recommendations in which she recommended that the Court dismiss the petition for failure to

25

state a cognizable claim. Neither party objected to the findings and recommendations. The

26

District Court adopted the findings and recommendations on June 28, 2017, and dismissed the

27

///

28
1

1

petition, denied a certificate of appealability, and ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case.

2

Judgment was entered the same day.

3

On June 28, 2017, the Federal Defender moved to withdraw as Petitioner’s attorney,

4
declaring that she had advised Petitioner that she was unaware of a non-frivolous issue on which
5
6

to raise an appeal, but that Petitioner was free to file an appeal on his own behalf if he chose. On

7

July 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an order providing Petitioner with 21 days to oppose

8

counsel’s motion to withdraw. Petitioner filed no opposition.

9
10
11

A petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings has no absolute right to appointment of counsel.
See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d
773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, in this case, the Court appointed counsel in the interest of

12
13
14

justice to ensure that if Petitioner had a cognizable claim for habeas relief but was unable to
represent himself as a result of his disability, his claim was fully investigated and prosecuted by

15

experienced counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254

16

Cases. After Petitioner’s appointed counsel met with Petitioner and reviewed the factual

17

background of his claim in light of applicable law, Petitioner moved to dismiss his claim as

18
19

factually unsupported. The case having been dismissed and no basis for appeal being apparent,
counsel has satisfied the terms of her appointment.

20
Conclusion and Order

21

The terms of appointment having been satisfied and the above-captioned case having been

22
23

dismissed and closed, the Federal Defender is hereby RELEASED from her appointment as

24

counsel for Petitioner.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated:

28

August 8, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

.