Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05182/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05182-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM R. GARRETT,

Petitioner,

 v.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-05182 SBA (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order denying

appointment of counsel.

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have

been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) a void judgment; (5)

a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. 

Mere dissatisfaction with the Court's order, or belief that the Court is wrong in its decision, are not

grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other provision of Rule 60(b). "'[T]he major

grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting

United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Case 4:06-cv-05182-SBA Document 21 Filed 05/08/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.06\Garrett5182.DenyReconAtty.frm 2

Petitioner presents no grounds that warrant reconsideration. As explained in the Court's

Order denying appointment of counsel, the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in

habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 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), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)

authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if "the court determines

that the interests of justice so require," the courts have made appointment of counsel the exception

rather than the rule. Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations, see Chaney, 801 F.2d

at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966), and

whenever an evidentiary hearing is required, see Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases; United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995); Bashor, 730 F.2d at

1234. At present, the Court has ordered briefing on relatively straightforward issues, and no

evidentiary hearing appears necessary. The Court has previously determined that appointment of

counsel is not warranted in this case even if Petitioner has alleged that he is somewhat mentally

impaired. (Mar. 24, 2008 Order at 2.) The record shows that Petitioner's claims were all well

briefed by counsel on direct appeal and that they are typical claims that are not especially complex. 

(Id.) Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED because this is not an

exceptional case that would warrant representation on federal habeas review.

This Order terminates Docket no. 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/7/08 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-05182-SBA Document 21 Filed 05/08/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.06\Garrett5182.DenyReconAtty.frm 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RUSSELL GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D.L. RUNNELS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-05182 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 8, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

William R. Garrett V-30110

California State Prison, Los Angeles

P.O. Box 8457

Lancaster, CA 93539-8457

Dated: May 8, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-05182-SBA Document 21 Filed 05/08/08 Page 3 of 3