Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01487/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01487-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE A. NARANJO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv1487 WQH

(PCL)

vs. ORDER

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Request for Appointment of Counsel filed by

Petitioner Jose A. Naranjo. (ECF No. 38).

BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2013, the Court conducted a de novo review of the record and found

that Petitioner Jose A. Naranjo had not been afforded the effective assistance of counsel

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. (ECF No. 27). 

On May 1, 2013, the Court amended the April 10, 2013 Order to indicate its

finality. The Court granted Petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus, which stated:

“Respondent shall release Petitioner from custody on June 9, 2013 unless, prior to that

date, the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego has vacated its June 3, 2009

order and judgment and then reinstated that order and judgment, thereby allowing

- 1 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 39 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner to initiate the appeal process from the reinstated judgment by seeking a

certificate of probable cause.” (ECF No. 29 at 3).

On May 30, 2013, Respondent filed a Status Report. (ECF No. 31). Respondent

stated that counsel has been appointed to assist Petitioner in the state court proceedings. 

Respondent stated that counsel for Petitioner and the San Diego County District

Attorney’s Office reached “a tentative agreement between them to effectuate this

Court’s grant of habeas relief,” which would involve: (1) the filing of a successive

habeas petition in state court “based on the same allegations of ineffective assistance

as raised in this [federal] Court”; (2) the filing of a stipulation by the District Attorney’s

Office stating that the state habeas petition should be granted; and (3) “a Superior Court

judge’s grant of state relief such that [Petitioner] will be allowed to file a notice of

appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause.” Id. at 1-2. Respondent stated

that Petitioner’s state court counsel wrote to Petitioner in prison on May 24 2013, but

had not received any response as of May 29, 2013. Respondent requested an additional

thirty days to comply with the conditions of the Court’s May 1, 2013 Order due to “the

need for [Petitioner’s counsel] to communicate with [Petitioner].” Id. at 2.

On May 30, 2013, the Court issued an Order resetting the date on which

Petitioner must be released – if the conditions of the May 1, 2013 Order are not satisfied

– to July 9, 2013. (ECF No. 32). The Court also stated:

Respondent shall file, no later than June 21, 2013, any request to modify the conditions of the Court’s May 1, 2013 Order, i.e. that the Superior Court of California, Court of San Diego vacate the June 3, 2009 state court order and judgment and then reinstate that order and judgment, thereby allowing Petitioner to initiate the appeal process from the reinstated judgment by seeking a certificate of probable cause. Any such request shall be filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Harvest v. Castro, 531 F. 3d 737 (9th Cir. 2008). Petitioner shall file

any response no later than July 5, 2013.

Id. at 2.

On May 31, 2013, Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit from

the Court’s May 1, 2013 Order. (ECF No. 34).

On April 4, 2013, Petitioner filed the Request for Appointment of Counsel, which

- 2 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 39 Filed 06/05/13 Page 2 of 4
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

is dated May 25, 2013. (ECF No. 38). Petitioner stated: “I, Jose A. Naranjo, a laymen

and Spanish speaking individual declare I am the Petitioner in the above-referenced

matter. I hereby request counsel be appointed in this matter ... to assist with

respondent’s multiple requests on how to proceed with this court’s order filed May 01,

2013.” Id. at 1.

DISCUSSION

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus

actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); see also

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, financially eligible

habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain

representation whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require....”

18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1177

(9th Cir. 1990) (stating that the decision to appoint counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254

proceeding is within the discretion of the district court). “To determine whether

appointment of counsel is required for habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a

district court should consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity

of the case, the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other

relevant factors.” Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); see also

Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970) (appointment of counsel may be

necessary if the petitioner has such limited education that he or she is incapable of

presenting his or her claims); Gonzalez v. Busby, 10CV02243 JLS RBB, 2012 WL

2190780, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2012) (“A due process violation may occur in the

absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner.”).

Having granted Petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus, the Court does not

find this action frivolous. The Court finds this case both legally and factually complex. 

This case is proceeding forward with strict deadlines, and the Court recognizes that the

postal mail communication between Petitioner and this Court has been significantly

delayed. Respondent has twice failed to serve time-sensitive filings upon Petitioner at

- 3 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 39 Filed 06/05/13 Page 3 of 4
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

the correct address. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the interests of

justice require appointment of counsel in this case. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(a)(2)(B);

see also Hall v. Haws, 05CV10 WQH JMA, 2012 WL 1857607 (S.D. Cal. May 22,

2012) (appointing counsel in § 2254 action because “a denial of Petitioner’s [pending]

motion under Rule 60(b) may raise significant due process issues”). 

CONCLUSION

The Request for Appointment of Counsel filed by Petitioner (ECF No. 38) is

GRANTED. Victor N. Pippins, Jr. is appointed by the Court pursuant to the Criminal

Justice Act to represent Petitioner in this case.

DATED: June 5, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv1487 WQH (PCL)

Case 3:11-cv-01487-WQH-PCL Document 39 Filed 06/05/13 Page 4 of 4