Cortez v. Lewis

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 4 Motion for Hearing; Denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order or face dismissal of this action for failure to pay the filing fee. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/5/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 GABRIEL RUDY CORTEZ, Petitioner, 12 13 vs. 14 15 16 GREG D. LEWIS, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 12-03819 EJD (PR) ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PAY FILING FEE; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Docket Nos. 2, 3 & 4) 17 18 Petitioner, a California inmate, seeks petition in pro se for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2.) The motion is DENIED because 21 Petitioner has not shown an adequate level of poverty as the average monthly 22 deposit in his account was $23.67 and the average monthly balance in his account 23 was $113.38, for the six-months preceding the filing of this petition. 24 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 3.) 25 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 26 See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 27 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is 28 within the discretion of the district court. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Order Denying IFP; Denying Other Motions G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.12\03819Cortez_deny-ifp.wpd 1 Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). An 2 evidentiary hearing does not appear necessary at this time, and there are no 3 exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, 4 Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua 5 sponte reconsideration should the Court later find an evidentiary hearing necessary 6 following consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claims. 7 Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, (Docket No. 4), is DENIED as 8 premature. The Court will sua sponte consider whether an evidentiary hearing is 9 appropriate after an initial review of the petition. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order or face dismissal of this action for failure to pay the filing fee. This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 13 14 DATED: 10/5/2012 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Denying IFP; Denying Other Motions G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.12\03819Cortez_deny-ifp.wpd 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GABRIEL RUDY CORTEZ, Case Number: CV12-03819 EJD Petitioner, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. GREG LEWIS, Warden, Respondent. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 10/9/2012 That on , 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. Gabriel Rudy Cortez J-76501 Pelican Bay State Prison P. O. Box 7500 Crescent City, Ca 95532 Dated: 10/9/2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk /s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?