From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Redic v. Marshall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 3, 2011
No. C 08-5010 RS (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)

10-03-2011

LARRY REDIC, Petitioner, v. JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER DISSOLVING STAY; ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of remedies in state court. Petitioner has filed several motions in recent months that indicate that he may have exhausted his claims. Accordingly, the order granting the stay (Docket No. 6) is VACATED, the stay is DISSOLVED, and the action REOPENED. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action.

On August 25, 2011, petitioner was ordered to inform the Court exactly what claims have been exhausted. (See Docket No. 16). The document he has submitted, however, fails to address the specific questions he was to answer. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's order. Petitioner may move to reopen the action, but such motion must be accompanied with a document that complies with the Court's August 25, 2011 order.

Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 17) is DENIED. There is no right to counsel in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require" and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court, see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), and should be granted only when exceptional circumstances are present. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Petitioner has not shown that there are exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 17, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Redic v. Marshall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 3, 2011
No. C 08-5010 RS (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)
Case details for

Redic v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:LARRY REDIC, Petitioner, v. JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Oct 3, 2011

Citations

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)