Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01096/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01096-0/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 

ZUll KAY -I AM 9: 03 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS FLOYD BRISSETTE, SR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, et aI., 

Respondent. 

Introduction 

Civil No. 12cv 1 096 AJB (WMc) 

ORDER DENYING 

PETITIONER'S MOTIONS 

(ECF Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30) 

Petitioner, Thomas Brissette, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No.1). Brissette challenges the Board ofParole 

Hearings' ("Board") May 2007 initial parole denial and April 2010 administrative review 

denial. (ECF No.1 at 7). Presently before the Court is Brissette's motion to appoint 

counsel (ECF No. 24), motion to stay and motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 26), 

motion for order to have property issued (ECF No. 28), and motion to end the stay (ECF 

No. 30). Respondent has not filed an opposition to Brissette's motions. 

Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion for Reconsideration 

The Court denies Brissette's request for counsel because the appointment of 

counsel is not necessary to avoid due process violations in the instant action. See 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he sixth amendment right 

to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions."); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 

1 12cvl096 AJB (WMc) 

Case 3:12-cv-01096-AJB-WMC Document 32 Filed 05/01/13 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 

27 

28 

1196 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not 

entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations."). Further, Brissette 

has not shown that he has been unable to articulate his positions because of the complexity of the claims. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (observing 

that the decision to appoint counsel turns on petitioner's ability to articulate claims in 

light of the complexity of the issues and the likelihood of success on the merits). 

Although Brissette's motion demonstrates a general lack of familiarity with the 

procedural posture of the case, Brissette has sufficiently articulated the substance of his 

underlying claims: Brissette contests the Board of Parole's May 2007 parole denial and 

April 2010 three-year parole review as lacking "some evidence" to support the denial 

and the alleged violation of his plea deal. (ECF No. 1). Also, at this stage of the litigation, there is very little likelihood ofsuccess ofthe merits. Indeed, Respondent moved to 

dismiss Brissette's petition as untimely, arguing that Brissette's claims exceeded by 459 

and 110 days, respectively, the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). See (ECF No. 20). Respondent's 

calculations credit Brissette with statutory tolling, but Respondent contests the application of equitable tolling because Brissette has neither requested equitable tolling nor 

provided any argument or reasoning for his delay. Id. Moreover, even assuming Brissette 

can overcome Respondent's motion to dismiss, Brissette still faces an uphill battle to 

prevail on his petition. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011). Accordingly, 

Brissette's request for the appointment of counsel is denied. 

The Court also denies Brissette's motion for reconsideration. Under Local Rule 

7.1(i)( 1), a party may apply for reconsideration "[w]henever any motion or any application for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in 

whole or in part ...." S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 7.l(i). The party seeking reconsideration must 

show "what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not 

exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application." Id. Here, however, Brissette has 

2 12cvl096 AJB (WMc) 

Case 3:12-cv-01096-AJB-WMC Document 32 Filed 05/01/13 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 

27 

28 

failed to alleged any new or different facts which did not exist or were not shown in his 

prior application. Accordingly, Brissette's motion for reconsideration ofthe Court's 

prior order is denied. 

Motion to Stay, Motion for Order to Have Property Issued, and Motion to End Stay 

Brissette filed a motion to stay the proceedings (ECF No. 26) because he was 

transferred from Calipatria State Prison to California State Prison - Lancaster ("Lancaster"). Once installed at Lancaster, Brissette filed a motion for a Court order to have his 

property, including legal materials, issued to him, and for law library access. (ECF No. 

28). Brissette then moved the Court to end the stay because Lancaster issued his property 

and legal materials to him, and (it appears) Lancaster is entertaining his request for law 

library access. (ECF No. 30). Thus, the issues raised in the three motions have been 

resolved. The motion to stay, the motion for an order to have property issued, and the 

motion to end the stay are denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 30, 2013 

______ 1A..LIL~~~,

II All.. j '. t \~ .......-~....-

Hon. William McCurine, Jr. 

U.S. M'!,gistrate Judge United States District Court 

3 12cvl096 AlB (WMc) 

Case 3:12-cv-01096-AJB-WMC Document 32 Filed 05/01/13 Page 3 of 3