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).

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