Reed, Sr. v. Biter
Filing
57
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 55 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 51 Motion for a Response. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TYRONE REED, Sr.,
Case No.
13-cv-5455-TEH
Petitioner,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
9
10
MARTIN BITER,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 51, 55
Respondent.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Petitioner, Tyrone Reed, filed a pro se petition for a writ
14
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
15
motion to dismiss and dismissed many claims from the petition as
16
procedurally defaulted.
17
the merits of the remaining claim and denied the petition.
18
Docket No. 48.
19
appoint counsel.
20
Docket No. 47.
The Court granted a
The Court then reviewed
Petitioner has filed an appeal and a motion to
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in
21
habeas corpus actions.
22
728 (9th Cir. 1986).
23
authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a
24
habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the
25
interests of justice so require” and such person is financially
26
unable to obtain representation.
27
is within the discretion of the district court.
28
Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at
See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however,
The decision to appoint counsel
See Chaney v.
1
728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984).
2
courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than
3
the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that
4
turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal
5
and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally
6
or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require
7
the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the
8
claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no position to
9
investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases.
The
See
generally 1 Randy Hertz & James Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 799-813 (6th ed. 2011).
12
Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a
13
particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to
14
prevent due process violations.
15
Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965).
16
See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196;
The Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted
17
in this case.
18
mental illness, he has not submitted “substantial evidence” that
19
he currently suffers from a serious mental illness that impairs
20
his ability to prosecute this action.
21
F.3d 1150, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that court must
22
assess petitioner's mental health during “relevant time period,”
23
pendency of habeas petition, and must hold competency hearing if
24
“substantial evidence” of debilitating mental illness exists).
25
While Petitioner states he is suffering from a
See Allen v. Calderon, 408
Petitioner has filed seven different state habeas petitions
26
regarding this conviction, each of which challenged his
27
conviction on different grounds.
28
filed at least ten civil rights complaints.
Since 2009, Petitioner has
2
It is possible that
1
all of these lawsuits were filed with the assistance of other
2
inmates, but that would merely prove that Petitioner’s mental
3
impairment does not interfere with his ability to secure legal
4
assistance when needed.
5
12-1377-CAS (SP), 2013 WL 693011, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013)
6
(equitable tolling context) (“Although petitioner's papers
7
indicate he never personally prepared a habeas petition,
8
petitioner admittedly understood that he needed ‘to go [through]
9
the courts to obtain relief’ and sought the assistance of three
See, e.g., Payne v. Gipson, No. ED CV
different inmates to file four habeas petitions.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
petitioner's mental state did not ‘interfere [ ] with the ability
12
to understand the need for assistance, the ability to secure it,
13
or the ability to cooperate with or monitor assistance the
14
petitioner does secure.’”) (quoting Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d
15
1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010)) (alterations in original).
16
Petitioner has adequately litigated this habeas case.
17
In other words,
Moreover,
The Court notes that Petitioner has also filed a motion to
18
appoint counsel in this case in the Ninth Circuit.
19
motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 55) is DENIED.
20
Petitioner’s motion for a response (Docket No. 51) is DENIED as
21
moot.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/17/2016
24
________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
25
26
Petitioner’s
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.13\Reed5455.ord4.docx
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?