Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05463/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05463-0/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE GIPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, 

warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-5463 SI (pr)

ORDER 

INTRODUCTION

Lonnie Gipson, a prisoner incarcerated at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville,

has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition

is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. His in forma pauperis application and motion for appointment

of counsel also are before the court for consideration.

BACKGROUND

Gipson alleges in his petition that he was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court

of assault with a deadly weapon. Sentence enhancement allegations were found true. He alleges

that he was sentenced to a prison term of 17 years in prison on February 14, 2003. He appealed.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court

denied review in 2004. 

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 5 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

Gipson then filed this action. His federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was dated

August 28, 2006, came to the court in an envelope post-marked August 30, 2006, and was

stamped "filed" on September 6, 2006. 

DISCUSSION

A. The Petition May Be Untimely

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, a district court may also order the respondent to file

another pleading where neither summary dismissal nor service is appropriate. 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which became

law on April 24, 1996, imposed for the first time a statute of limitations on petitions for a writ

of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Petitions filed by prisoners challenging non-capital

state convictions or sentences must be filed within one year of the latest of the date on which:

(1) the judgment became final after the conclusion of direct review or the time passed for

seeking direct review; (2) an impediment to filing an application created by unconstitutional state

action was removed, if such action prevented petitioner from filing; (3) the constitutional right

asserted was recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right was newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactive to cases on collateral review; or (4) the factual predicate

of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). Time during which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review is pending is excluded from the one-year time limit. See id. § 2244(d)(2).

Gipson's petition in this court apparently was filed long after his conviction became final.

His petition may be untimely under the AEDPA's one-year limitation period. This apparent

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 5 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

procedural problem should be addressed before the court reaches the merits of the claims raised

in the petition. If the petition is time-barred, the litigants and court need not expend resources

addressing the claims in the petition. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, respondent must either (1) move to dismiss the

petition on the ground that it is untimely, or (2) inform the court that respondent is of the opinion

that such a motion to dismiss is unwarranted in this case.

B. Motion For Appointment Of Counsel

Gipson filed a motion for appointment of counsel 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), cert.

denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a

particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.

See id. Based on the materials in the court file, it does not appear that appointment of counsel

is required in this action to prevent a due process violation. The motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION 

Good cause appearing therefor,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition, all

attachments thereto, and the rest of the case file upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also send a copy of this order to

petitioner. 

2. Respondent must file with the court and serve upon petitioner, no later than 

January 12, 2007, a motion to dismiss the petition or a notice that respondent is of the opinion

that a motion to dismiss is unwarranted.

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 5 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

3. If petitioner wishes to oppose the motion to dismiss, he must do so by filing an

opposition with the court and serving it upon respondent no later than February 16, 2007.

4. Respondent may file and serve a reply no later than February 28, 2007.

5. The motion will be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No

hearing will be held on the motion. If respondent notifies the court that a motion to dismiss is

unwarranted or the motion to dismiss is decided against respondent, the court will then

determine whether to require an answer to the petition.

6. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 4.) 

7. Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

(Docket # 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05463-SI Document 5 Filed 11/09/06 Page 4 of 4