Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01004-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALPHONSO HAYDEN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-01004 WBS DB

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an application

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moved to dismiss this action. 

(ECF No. 11.) Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) Respondent filed a reply 

memorandum in support of the dismissal motion. (ECF No. 17.) Petitioner then filed a motion to 

strike respondent’s reply for purportedly raising new arguments not addressed in the original 

motion. (ECF No. 18.) The court denied the motion to strike. (ECF No. 24.)

In light of the complexity of the legal and factual involved, the court has determined that 

the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel for the purpose of opposing the pending 

motion to dismiss. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983). Specifically, the court’s review of the briefing on the motion to dismiss and 

the extensive mental health records filed with the court raise the possibility that an evidentiary 

hearing may be required pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Bills v. Clark. 628 F.3d 1092, 

1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (“the district court must . . . find the petitioner has made a non-frivolous 

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 47 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

showing that he had a severe mental impairment during the filing period that would entitle him to 

an evidentiary hearing”). 

The mental health records filed with the court (ECF No. 32) indicate petitioner was 

diagnosed with schizophrenia and endured episodes of hallucinations and delusions during the 

filing period. While the court does not yet draw any conclusions based upon its review of the 

record, the possibility of the need for an evidentiary hearing merits the appointment of counsel for 

petitioner.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner for purposes of opposing 

the pending motion to dismiss;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Federal 

Defender, Attention: Habeas Appointment;

3. Within 30 days of this order, if counsel for petitioner believes that evidence 

supporting equitable tolling can only be presented through an evidentiary hearing or that it would 

be more expedient to present evidence via an evidentiary hearing, then counsel for petitioner 

shall file a motion for an evidentiary hearing; 

4. Any response to petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing shall be filed within 

14 days of petitioner’s motion; and

5. Any reply to petitioner’s motion shall be filed within 7 days of the response.

Dated: November 22, 2016

Tim / DLB:10

ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.HABEAS / hayd1004.counsel

Case 2:14-cv-01004-WBS-DB Document 47 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 2