Robben v. Dagostini

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/7/2017 ORDERING petitioner shall either oppose respondent's motion to dismiss within 45 days, or he may seek a stay of proceedings in this court and raise the issue before the state court pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 270 (2005). Petitioner's 16 request for counsel is DENIED. Petitioner's 17 request for discovery is DENIED. The court's 7/12/2017 order (ECF No. 12 ), directing the AG to respond to the petition is WITHDRAWN. The motion to dismiss by the District Attorney of El Dorado County is ADOPTED as the response to the petition. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TODD ROBBEN, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. 2:17-cv-0532 WBS GGH v. ORDER JOHN DAGOSTINI, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 Petitioner is proceeding in pro se with the above-entitled action. On July 12, 2017 this 16 17 court issued an Order directing the Respondent to file a Response to the Petition for Habeas 18 Corpus within sixty days from the date of the Order. ECF No. 12. On July 28, 2017 the El 19 Dorado District Attorney’s Office filed a response seeking to dismiss the Petition on the grounds 20 of abstention, lack of federal court jurisdiction and failure to exhaust state remedies. The 21 petitioner shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to file an opposition to the Motion found 22 at ECF No. 15. Alternatively, petitioner may choose to bring the matter before the Sacramento 23 Superior Court in an effort to exhaust his remedies, but petitioner shall inform this court by way 24 of asking for a stay of this action if he chooses to go this route. Also pending on the court’s docket are petitioner’s motions to appoint counsel, ECF No. 25 26 16, and to Compel Production of Documents by the California Supreme Court. ECF No. 17. 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 A. 2 Appointment of Counsel There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 3 See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 4 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C.§ 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment 5 of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 7 In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the 8 appointment of counsel at the present time. Respondent has only recently filed a Response 9 (Motion to Dismiss) to the Petition on May 4, 2017. ECF No. 10. As a result Petitioner’s request 10 for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. 11 B. 12 Discovery Motion The scope of federal habeas corpus is subject to the terms of the Antiterrorism and 13 Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 [AEDPA] 28 U.S.C. section 2254. Under the Supreme 14 Court Decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 1315 S.Ct. 1388 (2011), no discovery can 15 be permitted unless there has been a decision of the state appellate court in the case pending that 16 has been found to be AEDPA unreasonable on the record before that appellate court. “We now 17 hold that review under § 2254(d)(1)(3) is limited to the record that was before the state court that 18 adjudicated the claim on the merits. Id. at 563 U.S. ___, 1315 S.Ct. at 1401. 19 In so far as there is no state record known to this court that can be reviewed, the 20 opportunity for the discovery that petitioner seeks is not available in this forum, but might be 21 available in a state court proceeding. 22 Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The petitioner shall either oppose Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss within 45 days 24 of the entry of this Order, or he may seek a stay of proceedings in this court in order to raise the 25 issue before the state court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 26 269, 270 (2005); 27 2. Petitioner’s request for appoint of counsel is DENIED; 28 3. Petitioner’s request for discovery is DENIED; 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. The court’s order of July 12, 2017, ECF No. 12, directing the Attorney General of the State of California to respond to the Petition is withdrawn; 5. The Motion to Dismiss by the District Attorney of El Dorado County is adopted as the Response to the Petition. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2017 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?