Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00016/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254dp Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Death Penalty)

---

!

i ptk,®

mmn ph 2* i

2

3

4 J; •

• 'r/'1

«■

■mSM#

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SUSAN DIANNE EUBANKS, Case No.: 17cv0016 DMS (MDD)

12 Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

13 v.

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING REQUEST FOR

APOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

14 DERRAL ADAMS, Acting Warden of

Central California Women’s Facility at

Chowchilla, 15

16 Respondent. (2) APPOINTING COUNSEL

PURSUANT TO

RECOMMENDATION OF

SELECTION BOARD

17

18

19

20 On January 4, 2017, Petitioner Susan Eubanks filed a request for appointment of

counsel for federal habeas proceedings, an accompanying declaration, and a civil cover

sheet. (ECF No. 1.) On January 12, 2017, the Court issued an Order Re Action Required

to Avoid Dismissal, noting the Petitioner had neither moved to proceed in forma pauperis

[“IFP”] nor paid the $5.00 filing fee and stating that the Court could not proceed until

Petitioner either paid the filing fee or qualified to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) On March 7,

2017, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed IFP along with a trust account statement

which reflected a $90.70 balance in her prison trust account. (ECF No. 3.) On March 13,

2017, the Court denied that motion and advised Petitioner that without payment of the

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

17cv0016 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:17-cv-00016-BEN-MDD Document 6 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
filing fee, the case was subject to dismissal without prejudice. (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) On

March 16, 2017, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 5.) Accordingly, the Court

now turns to Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel.

1

2

3

4 I.

5 BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in San Diego County Superior Court offour counts offirst

degree murder with the special circumstance of multiple murder and sentenced to death.

On December 19, 2011, the California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and

sentence on direct appeal. People v. Eubanks. 53 Cal. 4th 110 (2011). Petitioner states

that she did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

(ECF No. 1 at 2.) The California Supreme Court issued the Remittur in the case on January

19, 2012.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 On February 7, 2011, while the direct appeal was still pending, Petitioner filed a

habeas petition (Case No. SI90405) with the California Supreme Court. An informal

response was filed on September 8, 2011, and a reply was filed on September 20, 2012.

The California Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the state habeas petition.

14

15

16

17 II.

18 DISCUSSION

19 In the declaration accompanying her request for appointment of counsel, Petitioner

states that she has a pending and fully-briefed state habeas petition in the California

Supreme Court “unless and until the court issues an order to show cause or orders

supplemental briefing.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Petitioner states that “[t]he court may issue a

summary denial at any time, which is final immediately,” notes “[a]t that point, the time

for seeking federal review will begin running,” and declares: “I am submitting a request

for counsel now in anticipation of this contingency.” (Id.) Petitioner indicates that the

attorneys who represented her on her state appeal and in her state habeas proceedings have

each advised that they are not available to represent Petitioner in the federal proceedings.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

17cv0016 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:17-cv-00016-BEN-MDD Document 6 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
(Id.) Petitioner also states that: “I am indigent and do not have the assets to retain an

attorney to represent me in these proceedings.” (Id.)

The Ninth Circuit previously stated that “[w]hen ... an appeal of a state criminal

conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome ofhis

appeal before his state remedies are exhausted....” Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632,

634 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). While Petitioner’s state habeas

petition is currently pending in state court, the Ninth Circuit has more recently specified

that Sherwood applies only to a pending direct appeal. See Henderson v. Johnson, 710

F.3d 872, 873-74 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (rejecting district court’s reliance on

Sherwood to dismiss mixed federal habeas petition filed while state habeas petition was

pending without allowing leave to amend or considering a stay, clarifying that “Sherwood

stands for the proposition that a district court may not adjudicate a federal petition while a

petitioner’s direct state appeal is pending.”) (emphasis added.) As noted above,

Petitioner’s state appeal is concluded, as the California Supreme Court issued a remittur.

See Cal. Rules ofCourt, Rules 8.532, 8.540, 8.642.

The relevant federal statute which provides for the appointment of counsel in capital

habeas proceedings simply states that: “In any post conviction proceeding under section

2254 or 2255 oftitle 28, United States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence,

any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or

investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services shall be entitled to the

appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in

accordance with subsections (b) through (f).” 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). This district’s local

rules provide for the appointment of federal habeas counsel “at the earliest practicable

time.” See CivLR HC.3(d)(l). Upon review of this matter with reference to the above

authorities, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel appears reasonable and is

therefore GRANTED.

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 III

28 III

3

17cv0016 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:17-cv-00016-BEN-MDD Document 6 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1 During the pendency ofthis matter, the Court received a letter from the Selection

Board, in connection with Petitioner’s request for counsel.1 Based on the SelectionBoard’s

determination that recommended counsel have the requisite familiarity with federal and

capital case work, experience with the type ofissues presented in this particular case, and

the Board’s statement that counsel are willing to represent Petitioner, the Court

APPOINTS Attorneys Rebecca Jones and Ellis M. Johnston as counsel for Petitioner in

this matter.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 III.

9 CONCLUSION

10 Pursuant to Local Rule HC.3(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 3599, Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel is GRANTED, and pursuant to Local Rule HC.3(d) and the

recommendation of the Selection Board for the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California, the Court APPOINTS Rebecca Jones and Ellis M.

Johnston to represent Petitioner Susan Eubanks in her capital habeas corpus proceedings.

The Clerk ofthe Court shall serve a certified copy ofthis order on Petitioner Susan

Eubanks; Attorney Rebecca Jones; Attorney Ellis M. Johnston; Attorney Patrick M. Ford;

Attorney Michael Meaney; Respondent Derral Adams, Acting Warden of Central

California Women’s Facility at Chowchilla; the Clerk ofthe San Diego County Superior

Court; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California; Meagan J. Beale,

Deputy Attorney General ofthe State ofCalifornia; Office ofthe District Attorney of San

Diego County; Elaine A. Alexander, Appellate Defenders, Inc.; Joseph Schlesinger,

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 III

23 III

24 III

25 III

26

27

i That letter was sent directly to the undersigned’s chambers. Pursuant to this Order, that

letter will be filed under seal in the Court file. 28

4

17cv0016 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:17-cv-00016-BEN-MDD Document 6 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
California Appellate Project, San Francisco; Reuben C. Cahn, Federal Defenders of San

Diego, Inc.; and Attorney Charles M. Sevilla.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [Date]

1

2

3

4

5

Hon. Dana M. Sabraw

6 United States District Judge

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

17cv0016 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:17-cv-00016-BEN-MDD Document 6 Filed 03/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5