Redic v. Marshall

Filing 19

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER DISSLOVING STAY; ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/3/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 10/3/11*

3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

LARRY REDIC,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)
ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

v.

ORDER DISSOLVING STAY;

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Respondent.
/

17
18

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of remedies in state court.

20

Petitioner has filed several motions in recent months that indicate that he may have exhausted

21

his claims. Accordingly, the order granting the stay (Docket No. 6) is VACATED, the stay

22

is DISSOLVED, and the action REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action.

23

On August 25, 2011, petitioner was ordered to inform the Court exactly what claims

24

have been exhausted. (See Docket No. 16). The document he has submitted, however, fails

25

to address the specific questions he was to answer. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED

26

without prejudice because petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s order. Petitioner

27

may move to reopen the action, but such motion must be accompanied with a document that

28
No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

complies with the Court’s August 25, 2011 order.
Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 17) is DENIED.

2

There is no right to counsel in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791

4

F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district

5

court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that

6

the interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain

7

representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court,

8

see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), and should be granted only when

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

exceptional circumstances are present. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal

10

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383–86 (2d ed. 1994). Petitioner has not

11

shown that there are exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. The

12

Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 17, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the

13

file.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 3, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

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

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL