Bacigalupo v. Calderon

Filing 205

ORDER RE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND LITIGATION SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/24/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MIGUEL ANGEL BACIAGALUPO,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 94-02761 (BLF)

v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden

ORDER RE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND LITIGATION
SCHEDULE

Respondent.

12
13
14

Petitioner Miguel Angel Baciagalupo was originally sentenced to death. The death

15

judgment has since been reversed by the California Supreme Court. In re Baciagalupo, 55 Cal.

16

4th 312 (2012). Respondent has elected not to re-seek the death penalty, and in 2014, petitioner

17

was re-sentenced in state court to life without the possibility of parole. Accordingly, only his

18

guilt-phase claims remain in his federal habeas petition.

19

There is no right to counsel in non-capital habeas corpus proceedings. See Knaubert v.

20

Goldsmith, 791 F. 2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, because petitioner is financially

21

unable to obtain adequate representation and because the interests of justice so require, the Court

22

appoints petitioner's current lead counsel, Robert R. Bryan, under the Criminal Justice Act to

23

represent petitioner on his federal habeas petition. Mr. Bryan should seek reimbursement pursuant

24

to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d) and (e) via the Federal Public Defender's Office.

25

As requested, co-counsel Kevin G. Little will be permitted to withdraw as federal counsel.

26

Mr. Bryan's assistant counsel, Cheryl Cotterill, will not be substituted in for Mr. Little. As this

27

matter is no longer a capital case, two attorneys are no longer necessary or justified.

28

Within sixty days of the date of this Order, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer,

1

and to submit a joint statement to the Court regarding the remaining claims to be litigated. In

2

addition, the parties should submit a proposed order setting a schedule for briefing on the merits of

3

the remaining claims. In the interests of efficiency and in order to avoid oversize briefs, the

4

parties are directed to consider addressing the remaining claims in more than one motion (for

5

example, by grouping together claims that have the same factual predicate).

6
7

Also within sixty days of the date of this Order, petitioner is ORDERED to file an
electronic copy of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: November 24, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2