Bell v. Davis
Filing
3
ORDER (1) Granting Request To Proceed In Forma Pauperis; (2) Granting Request For Appointment Of Counsel; And (3) Referring Matter To Selection Board For Suggestion Of Appointed Counsel (Re Dkt #s 1 , 2 ). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/19/2 017. (Certified copies sent to: Petitioner, Atty Anthony Dain, Atty Miro F. Cizin, Habeas Corpus Resource Center; Respondent; Clerk of the San Diego County Superior Court; Xavier Becerra, Calif Atty Gen; Lynne McGinnis, Calif Deputy Atty Gen; Office of the District Atty of San Diego County; Joseph Schlesinger, Calif Appellate Project, San Francisco; Elaine Alexander, Appellate Defenders, Inc.) (mdc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN M. BELL,
Case No.: 17cv1051-WQH-JLB
Petitioner,
12
13
v.
14
DEATH PENALTY CASE
RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San
Quentin State Prison
15
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
Respondent.
16
(3) GRANTING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; AND
17
18
(3) REFERRING MATTER TO
SELECTION BOARD FOR
SUGGESTION OF APPOINTED
COUNSEL
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On May 23, 2017, Petitioner Steven M. Bell filed a request for appointment of
counsel for federal habeas proceedings and an accompanying declaration. (ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [“IFP”]. (ECF
No. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the request to proceed IFP,
GRANTS the request for appointment of counsel, and REFERS the matter to the Selection
Board for the Southern District of California for the recommendation of one or more
attorneys for appointment.
1
17cv1051-WQH-JLB
1
I. BACKGROUND
2
Petitioner was convicted in San Diego County Superior Court of one count of first
3
degree murder with the special circumstances of robbery-murder and was sentenced to
4
death. On February 15, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and
5
sentence on direct appeal. People v. Bell, 151 P.3d 292 (Cal. 2007). The petition for a
6
writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 1, 2007. Bell
7
v. California, 552 U.S. 826 (2007).
8
On March 29, 2007, Petitioner filed a habeas petition (Case No. S151362) with the
9
California Supreme Court, and on June 22, 2009, Petitioner filed an amended petition
10
accompanied by declarations and exhibits. An informal response was filed on October 15,
11
2009, and a reply was filed on September 28, 2010. The California Supreme Court issued
12
an order to show cause on January 21, 2014. A return was filed on May 14, 2014 and a
13
Traverse was filed on September 25, 2014. The California Supreme Court ordered a
14
reference hearing on November 12, 2014 and appointed a referee. After the hearing, the
15
referee submitted a report on March 21, 2016. After the submission of additional briefing,
16
the California Supreme Court held oral arguments on April 5, 2017. On June 8, 2017, the
17
California Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that “[b]ecause no misconduct has been
18
proven, we will discharge the order to show cause and, by separate order, deny Bell’s
19
petition for writ of habeas corpus.” In re Steven M. Bell on Habeas Corpus, ___ P. 3d ___,
20
2017 WL 2472824, at *1 (Cal. June 8, 2017). In that opinion, the California Supreme
21
Court also stated that “[b]ecause our order to show case and our reference order were
22
limited to this claim, we do not here address any other claim set forth in the petition. The
23
remaining claims will be resolved by a separately filed order.” Id. at *7.
24
II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP
25
With respect to the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner has attached a
26
declaration and trust account statement, which reflects that Petitioner has $0.02 in his
27
account at San Quentin State Prison, where he is presently confined. (ECF No. 2 at 4.)
28
Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s
2
17cv1051-WQH-JLB
1
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allows Petitioner to proceed in the
2
above-referenced matter without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being
3
required to post security.
4
III. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
5
In a signed declaration dated May 1, 2017, Petitioner states that “[t]he habeas case
6
is currently under submission for decision, which will come within ninety days of oral
7
argument. At that point, the time for seeking federal habeas corpus review will begin
8
running.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Petitioner states that: “I am submitting a request for counsel
9
now in anticipation of this contingency,” and asserts that if his state petition is denied, he
10
intends to file a federal habeas petition and needs the assistance of counsel to prepare and
11
litigate a federal petition. Id. Petitioner also indicates that he has been advised that both
12
his state appellate counsel and his state habeas counsel are unavailable to represent him in
13
federal habeas proceedings and states that: “I am indigent and do not have the assets to
14
retain an attorney to represent me in these federal habeas corpus proceedings.” Id.
15
On June 8, 2017, during the pendency of the instant request, the California Supreme
16
Court issued an opinion discharging the order to show cause on the juror misconduct claim
17
and stated that it would resolve the remaining claims in the state habeas petition by separate
18
order. At present, the state docket does not indicate that any such separate order has been
19
filed and the state court’s website reflects the case status as: “opinion issued.” (See
20
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=
21
1883040&doc_no=S151362, last visited June 16, 2017.) The Ninth Circuit has held that
22
“when . . . an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be petitioner must
23
await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted.” Sherwood v.
24
Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). As noted
25
above, Petitioner’s direct appeal is long concluded, as the United States Supreme Court
26
denied the petition for writ of certiorari in 2007. While Petitioner’s state habeas petition
27
remains pending before the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that
28
Sherwood applies only to pending direct appeals. See Henderson v. Johnson, 710 F.3d
3
17cv1051-WQH-JLB
1
872, 874 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting district court’s reliance on Sherwood to dismiss federal
2
habeas action filed while state habeas petition was pending without allowing leave to
3
amend or considering a stay, stating that “Sherwood stands for the proposition that a district
4
court may not adjudicate a federal petition while a petitioner’s direct state appeal is
5
pending.”).
6
The relevant federal statute, which provides for the appointment of counsel in capital
7
habeas actions, simply states that: “In any post conviction proceeding under section 2254
8
or 2255 of title 28, United States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, any
9
defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or
10
investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services shall be entitled to the
11
appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in
12
accordance with subsections (b) through (f).” 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). Meanwhile, this
13
district’s local rules provide for the appointment of federal capital habeas counsel “at the
14
earliest practicable time.”
15
Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel appears reasonable and is therefore
16
GRANTED.
17
See CivLR HC.3(d)(1).
Based on these considerations,
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
18
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed
19
in forma pauperis and GRANTS Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. It is
20
HEREBY ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Selection Board for the United
21
States District Court, Southern District of California, for suggestion of one or more counsel
22
to be appointed to represent Petitioner in his federal habeas corpus proceedings.
23
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a certified copy of this order on Petitioner Steven
24
M. Bell; Attorney Anthony Dain; Attorney Miro F. Cizin, Habeas Corpus Resource Center;
25
Respondent Ron Davis, Warden of San Quentin Prison; the Clerk of the San Diego County
26
Superior Court; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California; Lynne
27
McGinnis, Deputy Attorney General of the State of California; Office of the District
28
4
17cv1051-WQH-JLB
1
Attorney of San Diego County; Joseph Schlesinger, California Appellate Project, San
2
Francisco; and Elaine Alexander, Appellate Defenders, Inc.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: June 19, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
17cv1051-WQH-JLB
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?