Rutledge v. Barnes

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING 45 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING 43 PETITIONER'S MOTION "TO GRANT PETITIONER'S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS." Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 14, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 THOMAS RUTLEDGE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________ ) 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 No. C 08-5738 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION “TO GRANT PETITIONER’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS” (Docket Nos. 43, 45) 15 16 On October 29, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the 17 above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thereafter, 18 the Court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted, or 19 alternatively, to file a motion to dismiss. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, and 20 petitioner has filed a traverse. Consequently, the petition is deemed submitted, and a 21 decision on the merits will be filed in a separate order. 22 Now pending before the Court is: (1) petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel; 23 and (2) petitioner’s “motion to grant petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.” 24 1. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 25 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this 26 action. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert 27 v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to 28 statute, however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas 1 petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such 2 person is financially unable to obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 3 Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the petition, and the interests of 4 justice do not otherwise require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, petitioner’s 5 motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. 6 2. “Motion to Grant Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus” 7 In addition to the above motion, petitioner has filed a motion asking the Court to grant 8 his petition, on the asserted ground respondent failed to comply with the Court’s deadline for 9 filing an answer to the petition. By its order of April 29, 2011, the Court extended to June 27, 2011 the deadline by which respondent was required to respond to the petition. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Respondent filed an answer to the petition on that date. Accordingly, the answer was timely 12 filed, and the motion will be denied. 13 CONCLUSION 14 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 16 1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 17 2. Petitioner’s “motion to grant petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus” is hereby denied. 18 19 This order terminates Docket Nos. 43 and 45. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: December 14, 2011 22 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?