Wilkins v. Macomber
Filing
34
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL AND DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/25/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KEENAN G. WILKINS,
Case No. 16-cv-00221-SI
Petitioner,
8
v.
9
10
JEFF MACOMBER,
Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL AND DENYING
MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
27, 28, 30, 31
12
13
Keenan G. Wilkins, a/k/a Nerrah Brown, filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus
14
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his conviction in Alameda County Superior Court of
15
seven counts of second degree robbery, seven counts of false imprisonment by violence, and
16
making criminal threats, for which he is now serving a 100-years-to-life sentence. See Docket No.
17
9 at 1. His petition and other filings disclose that Wilkins had a lengthy pretrial detention, a
18
significant portion of which was due to issues related to his mental competency. His direct appeal
19
raised issues regarding his competency to stand trial, denial of a Faretta motion, and denial of
20
Marsden motions.
21
This court reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissed it with leave for
22
Wilkins to file an amendment to his petition.
23
directions as to what Wilkins needed to include in his amendment to address the numerous
24
pleading problems. Id. Wilkins filed a first amendment to his petition on August 4, 2016, and
25
reported that he sent it just three days after receiving the order of dismissal with leave to amend.
26
Docket No. 15; see Docket Nos. 13, 14. Thereafter, Wilkins sent numerous requests to present
27
evidence in support of various claims, usually accompanied by bits and pieces of the record. The
28
result of the quickly-prepared amendment, plus the numerous requests to present evidence, is that
Docket No. 9. The order provided detailed
1
the presentation of claims for habeas review is very confused and will be an impediment to the
2
orderly resolution of this action.
Wilkins requested appointment of counsel in his amendment to the petition, explaining that
4
he has schizophrenia and did not understand the court’s order. Docket No. 15 at 1. The Sixth
5
Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791
6
F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to
7
appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests
8
of justice so require . . . .” Here, there are issues surrounding Wilkins’ competency, complicated
9
pretrial proceedings in state court, and many issues that have never been briefed by an attorney.
10
The court finds that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s request
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
for appointment of counsel (see Docket No. 15 at 1) is GRANTED. This matter is REFERRED to
12
the Federal Public Defender to find representation for petitioner.
13
The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the Office of the Federal Public Defender.
14
Upon being notified by the Office of the Federal Public Defender that an attorney has been located
15
to represent petitioner, the court will appoint that attorney as counsel for petitioner. All further
16
proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED until 30 days from the date counsel is appointed.
17
Wilkins’ several requests to present evidence in support of various claims are DENIED.
18
(Docket Nos. 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31.) In a typical federal habeas action,
19
there is a petition (and amended petition if necessary), an answer from the respondent, and a
20
traverse from the petitioner. The respondent typically is ordered to, and does, provide a copy of
21
the portions of the record that have been transcribed and are relevant to the habeas claims.
22
Wilkins’ presentation of non-sequential pages from unspecified portions of the record is
23
unnecessarily confusing, especially when the court will soon obtain a full record from respondent,
24
which puts the individual pages of the record in context and makes them easier to understand. If a
25
petitioner has documents other than the state court record that he wishes to present to the federal
26
habeas court, those other documents may be attached as exhibits to the petition or to the traverse.
27
The miscellaneous documents that are not part of the state court record should not trickle into the
28
court throughout the pendency of the case, because that sort of presentation makes the claims
2
1
unnecessarily difficult to evaluate.
2
It is quite possible that, once an attorney is located to represent Wilkins, that attorney will
3
wish to file an amended petition. When that attorney first appears in this action, he or she may
4
request a briefing schedule to file an amended petition. That amended petition then can include all
5
of Wilkins’ claims and have attached to it the miscellaneous documents that are not part of the
6
state court record that Wilkins wants the federal habeas court to consider.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 25, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
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?