Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01132-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS J. BRYANT, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1132 FCD GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

By order filed on August 30, 2005, petitioner was directed, within thirty days, to

show good cause for having failed to exhaust state court remedies as to five unexhausted claims. 

Petitioner seeks a stay and abeyance of a petition containing three claims that were exhausted on

direct appeal, so that he might exhaust five newly discovered claims. Petitioner was specifically

directed, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005), to provide

more information to make a showing of good cause for his having failed to bring these

unexhausted claims before the state’s highest court before filing the pending petition in this

court. He was informed that making a conclusory assertion that the unexhausted claims are

newly discovered does not constitute the requisite good cause. He was told that he must provide

detail as to why his appellate counsel failed to bring the claims at issue, as to when petitioner 

received the documents to review for the first time, and as to how long it took him to review the

Case 2:05-cv-01132-FCD-CHS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1Petitioner avers that the judgment in his case was affirmed by the Third District Court of

Appeal on April 19, 2004. See petition, filed on June 8, 2005.

record; petitioner must also provide the basis for each of his newly made claims and explain to

the court why he did not present the claims in state court prior to filing his petition here. 

Failure to make a sufficient showing, petitioner was cautioned would result in the

recommendation that the unexhausted claims being dismissed and the matter proceeding only

upon the exhausted claims contained in his original petition. For the court to recommend a stay,

petitioner was cautioned that he would have to make the requisite showing of good cause and the

claims would have to appear not to be wholly without merit [emphasis in original order]. 

In his response, petitioner has failed to specify straightforwardly when precisely

he received the trial transcripts that he reviewed prior to discovering the new claims, and how

long it took him to review the trial record. For example, he states that he did not discover the

basis for several of the unexhausted claims until five months after the state supreme court denial

of his direct appeal, but he does not provide the date of that denial. A review of exhibits attached

to his original petition appears to indicate that he may not have received his trial transcripts until

a mailing dated November 30, 2004. Nevertheless, that does not explain his failure to “discover”

his new claims until the time that he filed his petition in this court on June 8, 2005. Nor has

petitioner indicated whether or not he has currently proceeded to commence exhaustion of the

five additional claims in state court. He also has not provided an adequate basis for each

unexhausted claim for the court to determine whether any of his unexhausted claims has merit.

As to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner appears to have been

aware of the basis for such a claim long before the exhaustion of his direct appeal, i.e., by no

later than March of 2003, according to his exhibits filed on September 29, 2005.1 Petitioner

does not address why he did not seek to exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claim

earlier. 

Petitioner’s showing is inadequate, but the court will grant petitioner one last

opportunity to make a showing of good cause for his failure to exhaust the five additional claims

and to provide the basis of each claim so that the court can make a determination as to the merit,

Case 2:05-cv-01132-FCD-CHS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 3
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

or lack of merit, of each unexhausted claim. Petitioner will be granted thirty more days to do so;

if he does not make the required showing as well as provide an adequate basis for each

unexhausted claim, no stay will be recommended and the court will simply strike the

unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claims. There will be no further extension

of time.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner has thirty more days, with no further extension of time, to make the

required showing of good cause for his failure to exhaust each of his unexhausted claims and to

provide a sufficient basis for each unexhausted claim so that the court can determine whether

each or any claim may have merit; failure to do so will result in the unexhausted claims being

stricken and this matter proceeding only upon the exhausted claims of the original petition; and

2. Petitioner’s September 29, 2005 request for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: 10/25/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

brya1132.ord2

Case 2:05-cv-01132-FCD-CHS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 3