Hall v. People of State of California
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/13/2017 DENYING petitioner's 16 motion for appointment of counsel and GRANTING petitioner's request for clarification. Petitioner shall file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss on or before 10/3/2017. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID SCOTT HALL,
No. 2:17-cv-0312 KJM DB P
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel on the grounds that he is mentally ill
and taking medication that affects his ability to understand how to proceed. There currently
exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner,
105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of
counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R.
Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice
would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF NO. 13) is denied without
prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
Petitioner has also expressed confusion as to how to respond to respondent’s pending
motion to dismiss. The court construes this is a request for clarification. Pursuant to Eastern
District of California Local Rule 230(l), motions filed in prisoner actions must be opposed within
twenty-one days of service, and reply briefs are due seven days thereafter:
All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed
in actions wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in
propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral
argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions
need not be noticed on the motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to
the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the
responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date
of service of the motion. A responding party who has no opposition
to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that
effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of
the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no
opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the
granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of
sanctions. The moving party may, not more than seven (7) days
after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, serve and file a
reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted
when the time to reply has expired.
Respondent filed its motion to dismiss on August 1, 2017. In light of petitioner’s request for
clarification, the undersigned will grant him additional time in which to file his opposition, if any,
to the pending motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) is DENIED;
2. Petitioner’s request for clarification is GRANTED; and
3. Petitioner shall file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending
motion to dismiss on or before October 3, 2017.
Dated: September 13, 2017
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?