(HC) Miller v. Warden of Valley State Prison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN S. MILLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01519-JDP 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL AND TO DISREGARD DUPLICATIVE PETITION 14 WARDEN OF VALLEY STATE PRISON, ECF No. 14 15 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO AMEND 16 NAME OF RESPONDENT 17 18 Petitioner Stephen S. Miller, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 10. Before us are petitioner’s April 10, 2020 motion 20 for the appointment of counsel, motion to disregard a duplicative petition, and request to amend 21 the name of the respondent in this case. ECF No. 14. 22 First, a petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right to counsel. See 23 Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). There are three specific circumstances in 24 which appointment of counsel is required in habeas proceedings. First, appointment of counsel is 25 required for an indigent person seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence in post-conviction 26 proceedings under 28 U.S.C §§ 2254 or 2255. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). Second, appointment 27 of counsel may be required if an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See Rules Governing § 2254 28 1 Cases 8(c). Third, appointment of counsel may be necessary for effective discovery. See id. at 2 6(a). None of these situations is present here. 3 We are further authorized to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a habeas corpus 4 proceeding if we determine that the interests of justice require the assistance of counsel. See 5 Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). However, 6 “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel 7 unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to 8 prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. In assessing whether to appoint 9 counsel, we evaluate the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of 10 the petitioner to articulate his claims without counsel, considering the complexity of the legal 11 issues involved. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 12 We cannot conclude at this point that counsel is necessary to prevent a due process 13 violation. The legal issues currently involved are not exceptionally complicated and petitioner 14 has not yet demonstrated a great likelihood of success on the merits at this early stage in the case. 15 Accordingly, we find that appointed counsel is not necessary to guard against a due process 16 violation and that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. 17 ECF No. 14 at 1. 18 Second, petitioner requests that we disregard a duplicative petition. ECF No. 14 at 2. On 19 February 24, 2020, finding the original petition vague and conclusory, we ordered petitioner to 20 show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. ECF 21 No. 7. On March 12, 2020, petitioner responded with a first amended petition. ECF No. 10. We 22 discharged our order to show cause and ordered the respondent to respond to the petition. ECF 23 No. 11. On April 10, 2020, petitioner notified the court that he had accidentally filed two copies 24 of the same petition on two different dates. ECF No. 14 at 2. Petitioner requests that we 25 disregard the second petition and use his first petition as the operative petition in his case. Id. 26 We have reviewed the docket and cannot find duplicative petitions.1 Because we cannot identify 27 1 Petitioner’s original petition was filed on October 28, 2019, consisted of 20 pages, and 28 contained four vague claims for relief. ECF No. 1. Petitioner’s first amended petition was filed 4:40 VV VEY EYE MMU ee YY VI 1 | the duplicate petitions, we cannot grant petitioner the relief he requests—and therefore, we will 2 || deny his request.” 3 Finally, petitioner notified the court of his recent placement at Atascadero State Hospital 4 | and requests that the respondent’s name be changed accordingly. ECF No. 14 at 4. We will grant 5 | petitioner’s request and direct the clerk of court to update the name of the respondent. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. ECF No. 14. 8 2. Petitioner’s motion to disregard a duplicative petition is denied. Id. 9 3. The clerk of court is directed to amend the name of the respondent in this case to the 10 director of the Atascadero State Hospital. Jd. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Pp □ \ prssanp Rae — Dated: _ April 14, 2020 14 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 | No. 206. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 *6 on March 12, 2020, consisted of 40 pages and contained two claims for relief related to half-time 27 | credits and sentencing enhancements. ECF No. 10. > Tn the event petitioner’s first amended petition is not the petition with which he wishes to 28 | proceed, he may file a motion for leave to file a second amended petition.