Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05753/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05753-19/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KEITH STAMPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY GROUNDS,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05753-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL AND APPOINTING 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

[Re: ECF 47]

On February 3, 2017, Petitioner’s counsel Donald T. Bergerson filed a motion to withdraw 

as attorney of record, which was “predicat[ed] . . . on the provision of replacement counsel for the 

indigent Stamps.” ECF 45. The Court construed Mr. Bergerson’s motion to withdraw as 

conditional upon the Court’s granting his motion to appoint counsel. As the Court denied the 

motion to appoint counsel, the Court terminated the motion to withdraw as moot. ECF 46. 

Now before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s prior order. 

See Mot., ECF 47. Civil Local Rule 7-9 provides that “[b]efore the entry of a judgment 

adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may 

make a motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration of any interlocutory order . . . . No party may notice a motion for reconsideration 

without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Although Petitioner’s 

motion is captioned as a request for reconsideration, the Court construes it as a motion for leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration itself. For the reasons 

discussed herein, the Court GRANTS leave to file the motion for reconsideration and GRANTS 

the motion for reconsideration.

A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material difference in 

Case 5:12-cv-05753-BLF Document 48 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is 

sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the 

court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). The moving 

party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-

9(c).

In his motion, Petitioner clarifies that his prior motion was not intended to be a request for 

withdrawal conditioned upon the Court’s granting his request for appointment of counsel, but 

rather two separate requests. See generally Mot. Given the Court’s misunderstanding of 

Petitioner’s prior request, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration and deems the pending request for reconsideration as the motion for 

reconsideration. Additionally, finding good cause, the Court GRANTS Mr. Bergerson’s request to 

withdraw as counsel effective February 13, 2017. Mot. 1 (citing disabling illness and possible 

conflict of interest). 

Petitioner also urges the Court to reconsider its order denying the appointment of counsel. 

Id. at 2. Petitioner asks the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to appoint counsel “due to 

the specific equities of this case.” Id. Although a state petitioner does not have a federal 

constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings, a petitioner may be 

entitled to appointed counsel upon a showing that the circumstances of his case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Anderson v. Heinze, 258 

F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 18 

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (providing that a district court has discretion to appoint counsel for state 

habeas corpus petitioners when it determines “that the interests of justice so require”). In light of 

the unique facts of this case—specifically, that the California Supreme Court denied his petition 

“without prejudice to any relief to which petitioner might be entitled after this court decides In re 

Alatriste, S214652 and In re Bonilla, S214960,” and those cases have since been remanded to the 

Los Angeles Superior Court—and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. 

Ct. 2455 (2012), the Court finds the appointment of counsel necessary to prevent due process 

Case 5:12-cv-05753-BLF Document 48 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

violations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2017

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-05753-BLF Document 48 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 3