Bennett v. The People

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 28 Motion for Hearing; denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID BENNETT, Petitioner, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-01918-JD ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 28 DEBBIE ASUNCION, Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 14 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is fully briefed and was recently reassigned to the Court. 15 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel 16 does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 17 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that in habeas cases, whenever “the court 18 determines that the interests of justice so require”, representation may be provided for any 19 financially eligible person. Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and they are not 20 particularly complex. The request is denied without prejudice. 21 Petitioner has also requested an evidentiary hearing. The petition presents two claims: (1) 22 that trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (2) that the prosecutor violated 23 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing involves 24 his allegations that the district attorney did not have legal grounds to prosecute him, there were 25 violations of the Fourth Amendment and there was an improper photo line-up. None of these 26 allegations concern the underlying claims in the petition and the record before the Court contains 27 all the information relevant to the claims. “[A]n evidentiary hearing is not required on issues that 28 can be resolved by reference to the state court record.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 1 (2007) (quoting Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1998)). The motion is denied 2 without prejudice. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows: 4 Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing (Docket No. 5 6 7 28) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2017 8 9 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge 10 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 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DAVID BENNETT, Case No. 16-cv-01918-JD Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 DEBBIE ASUNCION, Defendant. 8 9 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 That on August 17, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 18 David Bennett ID: V90090 California Medical Facility Housing: Q3 - 320 P.O. Box 2000 Vacaville, CA 95696-2000 19 20 21 Dated: August 17, 2017 22 23 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 24 25 26 27 By:________________________ LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JAMES DONATO 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?