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)

Download PDF
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?