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)

Download PDF
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

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?