Hedgepath v. Madden

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR STAY; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL by Judge Beth Labson Freeman Denying 25 Motion to Stay; Denying 26 Motion. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

HASSON HEDGEPETH,
Petitioner,
v.

13
14
15
16

Case No. 20-00858 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING RENEWED
MOTION FOR STAY; DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

R. MADDEN,
Respondent.
(Docket Nos. 25, 26)

17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

19

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. On April 7, 2021, the

20

Court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because Petitioner indicated that a

21

request for a new trial was pending in Alameda County Superior Court based on a claim of

22

instructional error. Dkt. No. 5 at 3. Petitioner also included an instructional error claim in

23

the petition and stated that the “instructional error wasn’t presented to any court because

24

my lawyer thought it held no matter despite my request to raise.” Id. at 5. Based on this

25

information, the Court concluded that Petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies

26

with respect to all the claims presented in the federal petition prior to filing this action.

27

Dkt. No. 19 at 2-3. Accordingly, Petitioner was directed to file an amended petition that

28

included only exhausted claims, as well as given an opportunity to file a renewed motion

1

for a stay to exhausted additional claims. Id. at 3-4.
Petitioner later filed a letter stating that the two claims in the petition, which was

3

filed on March 3, 2020, have since been exhausted, and points to supporting exhibits he

4

filed later in this action. Dkt. Nos. 20, citing Dkt. No. 14. In another letter, Petitioner

5

requested that the Court “dismiss” the renewed motion for stay as unnecessary since all his

6

claims are exhausted. Dkt. No. 21. Then on May 24, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to

7

stay the matter pending resentencing proceedings in state court. Dkt. No. 23. In the

8

interest of justice and judicial economy, the Court deemed the original petition and the

9

later filed exhibits as the operative petition in this matter. Dkt. No. 24. Because no further

10

filing was necessary from Petitioner, his motion for a stay was denied as unnecessary. Id.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

Petitioner has filed a renewed motion for a stay pending resentencing under Senate

12

Bill 620. Dkt. No. 25. Petitioner raised the following claims in this action: (1) the trial

13

court erred in failing to give instructions on self-defense, sudden quarrel or heat of passion

14

defenses; and (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the

15

instructional error on appeal. Dkt. No. 5 at 5-6. Petitioner’s resentencing under Senate

16

Bill 620 is not an issue before this Court. Therefore, the Court finds no need to delay this

17

matter by granting a stay. Accordingly, the renewed motion for a stay is DENIED. Dkt.

18

No. 25. Petitioner also requests the Court to direct the state courts to transmit records of

19

his habeas corpus proceedings. Dkt. No. 25 at 3. The Court finds such a request is

20

unnecessary since Petitioner has already provided such records.

21

Petitioner also moves for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 25 at 3; Dkt. No. 26.

22

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

23

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986).

24

Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the

25

discretion of the district court. Id.; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert.

26

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). An evidentiary hearing does not appear necessary at this

27

time, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel.

28

2

1

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice

2

to the Court’s sua sponte reconsideration should the Court later find an evidentiary hearing

3

necessary following consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claim.

4

Currently, Respondent’s answer to the Court’s Order to Show Cause is due by

5

August 31, 2021. Dkt. No. 24. There is no further action required from Petitioner until

6

Respondent’s answer is filed. Once the answer is filed, Petitioner will have thirty days to

7

file a traverse. If he needs additional time, Petitioner may file a motion requesting an

8

extension of time with good cause.

9
10

The Clerk shall include a copy of the Court’s “Order to Show Cause,” Dkt. No. 24,
with a copy of this order to Petitioner, per his request.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This order terminates Docket Nos. 25 and 26.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: __July 14, 2021___________

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Order Denying Stay; Denying Appt. of Counsel
PRO-SE\BLF\HC.20\00858Hedgepeth_motions

26
27
28

3