Stamps v. Grounds

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING 47 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/15/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/15/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KEITH STAMPS,

Case No. 12-cv-05753-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

RANDY GROUNDS,
Defendant.

[Re: ECF 47]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL AND APPOINTING
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

12
13

On February 3, 2017, Petitioner’s counsel Donald T. Bergerson filed a motion to withdraw

14

as attorney of record, which was “predicat[ed] . . . on the provision of replacement counsel for the

15

indigent Stamps.” ECF 45. The Court construed Mr. Bergerson’s motion to withdraw as

16

conditional upon the Court’s granting his motion to appoint counsel. As the Court denied the

17

motion to appoint counsel, the Court terminated the motion to withdraw as moot. ECF 46.

18

Now before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s prior order.

19

See Mot., ECF 47. Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides that “[b]efore the entry of a judgment

20

adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may

21

make a motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for

22

reconsideration of any interlocutory order . . . . No party may notice a motion for reconsideration

23

without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Although Petitioner’s

24

motion is captioned as a request for reconsideration, the Court construes it as a motion for leave to

25

file a motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration itself. For the reasons

26

discussed herein, the Court GRANTS leave to file the motion for reconsideration and GRANTS

27

the motion for reconsideration.

28

A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material difference in

1

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable

2

diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is

3

sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the

4

court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). The moving

5

party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-

6

9(c).

7

In his motion, Petitioner clarifies that his prior motion was not intended to be a request for

8

withdrawal conditioned upon the Court’s granting his request for appointment of counsel, but

9

rather two separate requests. See generally Mot. Given the Court’s misunderstanding of
Petitioner’s prior request, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a motion for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reconsideration and deems the pending request for reconsideration as the motion for

12

reconsideration. Additionally, finding good cause, the Court GRANTS Mr. Bergerson’s request to

13

withdraw as counsel effective February 13, 2017. Mot. 1 (citing disabling illness and possible

14

conflict of interest).

15

Petitioner also urges the Court to reconsider its order denying the appointment of counsel.

16

Id. at 2. Petitioner asks the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to appoint counsel “due to

17

the specific equities of this case.” Id. Although a state petitioner does not have a federal

18

constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings, a petitioner may be

19

entitled to appointed counsel upon a showing that the circumstances of his case indicate that

20

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Anderson v. Heinze, 258

21

F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 18

22

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (providing that a district court has discretion to appoint counsel for state

23

habeas corpus petitioners when it determines “that the interests of justice so require”). In light of

24

the unique facts of this case—specifically, that the California Supreme Court denied his petition

25

“without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this court decides In re

26

Alatriste, S214652 and In re Bonilla, S214960,” and those cases have since been remanded to the

27

Los Angeles Superior Court—and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.

28

Ct. 2455 (2012), the Court finds the appointment of counsel necessary to prevent due process
2

1
2

violations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated: February 15, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

7
8
9
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
3