Guzman v. Spearman

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 21 Motion for Appointed Counsel; ORDER to Show Cause; and Report and Recommendation on Ground Six. The Court denies the request for appointed counsel at this time. The Court orders Guzman to file a memorandum, by August 4, 2017, ex plaining why Ground Five should not be dismissed for failing to exhaust his state court remedies. The Court recommends dismissing Ground Six, but granting Guzman leave to amend his petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 7/13/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf) (Main Document 22 replaced on 7/13/2017) (yeb).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Irwin Guzman, 11 Case No.: 16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS Petitioner, 12 v. 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL (Doc. 21); ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GROUND SIX Spearman, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner Irwin Guzman moves for appointed counsel to assist with his habeas 17 corpus petition. For the reasons below, the Court denies this request, orders him to show 18 cause for failing to exhaust Ground Five, and recommends dismissing Ground Six with 19 leave to amend. 20 A. 21 Guzman requests appointed counsel because: he has “no legal training”; the case 22 presents complex legal issues; he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar 23 disorder; and he is a slower learner who needed assistance from a prison tutor to even write 24 the current motion. (ECF No. 21, at 1, 4-5.) Also, he points out that as a child he was in 25 special education class, and that it is “only a matter of time until I have no help from 26 anyone[.]” (ECF No. 21, at 5.) “The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to 27 habeas petitions, although some financially eligible petitioners may obtain counsel when 28 “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 Appointed Counsel 1 16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS 1 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 756–57 2 (1991). To meet that standard, the case must suggest that “appointed counsel is necessary 3 to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Additionally, petitioners may 4 receive appointed counsel if they have such limited education that they are incapable of 5 presenting their claims. Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). 6 The Court finds that Guzman’s due process rights are not in jeopardy here, and that 7 he has proven himself to be sufficiently capable of pursuing habeas relief on his own. 8 Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, his six grounds for relief are not unusually 9 complicated. Guzman mentions that he needed a prison tutor’s aid to write the current 10 motion (and that tutor may soon be leaving), but all of Guzman’s filings throughout this 11 litigation have thus far been clearly and logically presented. Thus, the Court DENIES his 12 request for appointed counsel at this time. 13 B. 14 Guzman’s fifth ground for relief is that the “cumulative effect of the errors below 15 rendered [his] trial fundamentally unfair in violation of his due process rights.” (ECF No. 1, 16 at 14.) It appears Guzman never raised this claim in any state proceedings, and it was not 17 mentioned in the state appellate court’s opinion. People v. Garcia, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 399 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2016), rev. denied, (June 8, 2016). A prisoner must exhaust his 19 state court remedies before filing a federal habeas petition by fairly presenting his claims 20 to the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2554(b)(1); Wooten v. Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1025-26 21 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Court ORDERS Guzman to file a memorandum, by 22 August 4, 2017, explaining why Ground Five should not be dismissed for failing to exhaust 23 his state court remedies. Order to Show Cause for Failing to Exhaust Ground Five 24 C. 25 In Ground Six, Guzman seeks to “join in all arguments raised by the co-appellants 26 that may accrue to his benefit.” (ECF No. 1, at 14.) Although such “beneficial joinder” is 27 permitted in California state courts, “the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 28 States District Courts do not permit such joinder arguments.” Hansen v. Johnson, Report and Recommendation Regarding Ground Six 2 16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS 1 No. 12CV1741 AJB (DHB), 2014 WL 1379275, at *18 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014). Even if 2 this procedure were allowed in federal court, Guzman does not specify any co-appellant or 3 case to which this court could even refer. Thus, this Court recommends DISMISSING 4 Ground Six, but granting Guzman leave to amend his petition. 5 If the District Judge allows Guzman to file an amended petition, Guzman’s new 6 petition must include every single claim for which he can seek federal relief—whether the 7 claim is new or old—without reference to any other person’s filing, and he must set out the 8 factual basis for each and every claim. Guzman is reminded that he may only include claims 9 that are timely and exhausted, unless he can show good cause for failing to exhaust or for 10 failing to timely bring the claims. 11 Upon being served with a copy of this report, the parties have 14 days to file any 12 objections. Upon being served with any objections, the party receiving such objections has 13 14 days to file any response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 14 Dated: July 13, 2017 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 16-cv-2659-MMA-AGS

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?