Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06351/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06351-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL KELLY,

Petitioner,

v.

P. SULLIVAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06351-EMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

AMEND AND DENYING REQUEST 

FOR COUNSEL

Docket Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13

James Carl Kelly, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this

pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court dismissed the 

action because Mr. Kelly’s petition for writ of habeas corpus did not concern his conviction or 

sentence and instead complained about the medical care he received at the prison. Docket No. 5. 

In dismissing the action, the Court explained that the “dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Kelly 

filing a new civil rights action asserting his challenges to his medical care in prison.” Id. at 2. 

Rather than filing a new civil rights action as instructed, Mr. Kelly has filed three motions

for leave to file an amended complaint regarding his medical care. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to 

file an amended complaint are DENIED. Docket Nos. 10, 11, 12. As the Court explained in 

dismissing this action, Mr. Kelly can file a new civil rights action to complain about his medical 

care. He cannot, however, present his medical care claims in this habeas action. If he wants to 

file a new action, Mr. Kelly should use the Court’s form civil rights complaint to allege his 

claim(s) and then submit that complaint with the filing fee or a completed in forma pauperis

application. (The forms will be sent to him with this order.) Mr. Kelly should not write the case 

number for this case on the complaint because a new case number will be assigned when the 

complaint is filed. 

Case 3:18-cv-06351-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Mr. Kelly also has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A 

district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines 

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

representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 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). 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of justice 

do not require appointment of counsel in this action because it is a closed action in which there is 

no possibility of habeas relief. Mr. Kelly’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Docket No. 13.

Mr. Kelly should not file any more documents in this action because it has been closed.

The clerk will mail to Mr. Kelly a copy of the civil rights complaint form and a copy of the 

in forma pauperis application. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06351-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 2