Arellano v. Paramo

Filing 30

ORDER: Arellano's Motions for Counsel (ECF Nos. 25 and 27 ) are Denied. Arellano's request for a sixty-day extension of the deadline for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation, see ECF No. 29 , is also Denied. Arellano shall file any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before 07/23/2018. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 06/11/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1

FILED

2

18JUN 12 A!Hl: 34

3

ClERK. U.S. OISTR!CT COURT

SOUTHERN 01> TRIC I Of CAllfORNh\

4

•
"7.r

5

t)fPUTY

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAUL ARELLANO,

11

Case No.: 16-cv-2337-WQH-MDD
Petitioner,

12

v.

13

ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO,

14
l5

Respondent.
HAYES, Judge:

16

On September 13, 2016, PlaintiffRaul Arellano, proceeding prose, commenced this

17

action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Daniel Paramo. (ECF No. 1).

l8

Arellano is incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Id. at 1. Arellano's

l9

Petition brings four claims. Arellano's first claim is that the state court that conducted his

20
21

criminal trial denied his constitutional right of access to the courts when it denied his
request for a free second set of trial transcripts. Id. at 18. Arellano's second claim is that

22

the state court violated his right to due process and his right of access to the courts when it

23

denied his request for a copy of transcripts of the voir dire in his criminal trial. Id. at 21.

24

Arellano' s third claim is that the state court violated the Fourth Amendment by not granting

25

him a free copy of his arrest warrant and its supporting affidavits. Id. at 22. Arellano's

26

fourth claim is that the state court violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by

27

not granting his request for a subpoena duces tecum. Id. at 23. Arellano's Petition also

28

requests that he be appointed counsel. Id. at 24.

16-cv-2337-WQH-MDD

1

On March 12, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a

2

Report· and Recommendation (ECF No. 15).

3

recommends that this Court deny Arellano's Petition because his claims "are not

4

cognizable for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254." (ECF No. 15 at 25). The Report

5

and Recommendation also recommends that this Court deny Arellano's request for

6

counsel:

7

As discussed above, Petitioner's four claims are not cognizable for habeas
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner cannot succeed on the merits of
uncognizable claims. An analysis of the Petitioner's ability to articulate
claims pro se is not necessary because the alleged claims are not cognizable.
Consequently, this Court need not exercise discretion to appoint counsel
because there has been no finding of exceptional circumstances.

8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

The Report and Recommendation

Id.
The Report and Recommendation set April 11, 2018 as the deadline for the parties
to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Id. On April 10, 2018, Arellano
requested an additional sixty days to object to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No.
22). On April 17, 2018, the Court granted Arellano's request for additional time, stating
"Arellano shall file any Objections to the Report and Recommendation ... on or before
June 18, 2018." (ECF No. 23 at 2).
On May 2, 2018, Arellano filed two handwritten Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF
Nos. 25, 27).

Arellano stated that he "suffered a concussion[ t]hat gave rise

to ... blindness." (ECF No. 25 at 1). Arellano stated that he "can[']t see enough to even

21

read a book" and that he writes by "following a blur[] and hoping [his] hand does a good

22

job." Id. Arellano also stated that he has not been offered "help with this dis[]ability." Id.

23
24
25

On May 30, 2018, Arellano filed a handwritten document requesting that the Court extend
the deadline for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation "another 60 days until
Motion for Counsel is resolved." (ECF No. 29 at 1).

26

On March 24, 2018, the Attorney General for the State of California filed a Status

27

Report discussing the "accommodations available to Plaintiff to assist him in litigating this

28

case if [his] condition persists." (ECF No. 28 at 4-5). A Declaration of J. Santana, the
2
16-cv-2337-WQH-MDD

"
1 Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility,

2 was filed with the Status Report (ECF No. 28-2). According to Santana,
3

4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff was designated Disability Placement
Impacted Vision or DPV, which is a DPP designation for vision-impaired
inmates. Since Plaintiff is now designated DPV, he will be recommended for
transfer from his current housing assignment. Plaintiff is a level 4 inmate and
may be transferred to another institution with a level 3 or 4 yard that is
specifically designated to accommodate vision-impaired inmates.
Pending transfer Plaintiffs designation as a DPV inmate allows him to
access machinery in the Donovan library that either magnifies text or will
audibly read the text to inmates . . . . Plaintiff is eligible to be provided with
a pocket magnifier, and each housing unit has a whole-page magnifier that is
available to be checked out by inmates for in cell use. A skilled inmate worker
will be available to Plaintiff on the yard to read text to him and to act as a
scribe in preparing written documents. Although CDCR staff members are
prohibited from assisting inmates with preparing legal documents or
providing legal advice, Plaintiff can ask any CDCR staff member for general
assistance with reading and writing. The law library is also staffed with
inmate library clerks who can assist Plaintiff with reading and writing.
(ECF No. 28-2 at iii! 7-11 ).
"Whenever the . . . court determines that the interests of justice so require,
representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who ... is seeking relief
under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). "Indigent
state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless
the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to
prevent due process violations." Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986);
(citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay,
345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996, (1966)).
The Court concludes that, in light of the accommodations available to Arellano,
appointing Arellano counsel is not necessary to prevent a due process violation. See ECF
No. 28-2 at

iii! 7-11. The Court concludes that, in light of the deficiencies with the

Arellano' s claims noted in the Report and Recommendation, the interests of justice do not

28
3
16-cv-2337-WQH-MDD

1

require appointing Arellano counsel. See ECF No. 15 at 13-24. Arellano's Motions for

2

Counsel (ECF Nos. 25 and 27) are DENIED.

3

Arellano's request for a sixty-day extension of the deadline for filing objections to

4

the Report and Recommendation, see ECF No. 29, is also DENIED. Arellano shall file

5

any objections to the Report and Recommendation on or before July 23

6
7

8

DATED:
WILLIAM Q. HA
United States Di ict Judge

9
10
11
12

13

14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22
23
24
25

26
27

28
4
16-cv-2337-WQH-MDD