Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00429/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00429-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD HEIDINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

 Respondent.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0429 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO FILE PETITION;

DENYING MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 1-3)

The above-titled action was opened on January 23, 2007, when petitioner, a California

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has since filed, on February 20, 2007, a motion for

“Financial Assistance for Investigator and Professional Assistance in Obtaining Expert

Witness.” Petitioner has not filed a petition or other civil complaint in this action.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution restricts adjudication in federal

courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans

United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). In the absence of

an actual petition for a writ of habeas corpus or other civil complaint, there is no case or

controversy for this Court to adjudicate. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir.

2001). Although, in some instances, a motion may be construed to be a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, see id. at 83-84, petitioner here has not alleged any grounds for such relief.

Petitioner attaches to his motion for appointment of counsel a copy of a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus petitioner filed in a prior action in this court, Heidinger v. Yates, 06-2832

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 5 Filed 05/24/07 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

1

Petitioner’s prior habeas action was dismissed without prejudice on June 20, 2006

because petitioner still had a post-conviction action pending in state court. 

2

MMC (PR),1 which he claims demonstrates his alleged inability to proceed without counsel. 

As petitioner does not indicate whether he wishes to proceed in this action based on the prior

petition and the claims therein, the motion will not be construed as a habeas petition.

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, petitioner shall file

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's petition shall be filed on the Court's form

for habeas petitions. The petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this

order (No. C 07-0429 MMC (PR)) on the first page. Petitioner must include in the petition

all the claims he wishes to present, and he may not include any unexhausted claims or

incorporate material from petitions filed in any prior actions by reference. Failure to

file a petition in conformity with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action

without prejudice.

As there is no petition, and consequently no case or controversy, presented herein,

petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel and for financial assistance are DENIED. 

Should petitioner file a petition herein containing cognizable claims for relief, and the

interests of just so require, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B) (authorizing appointment of counsel in habeas case whenever "the court

determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to

obtain representation").

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 1-3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2007

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00429-MMC Document 5 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2