Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05445-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE POPE,

Petitioner,

v.

RANDOLPH CANDELARIA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 99-5445 DLB HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S

NOTICE TO COURT TO APPOINT COUNSEL

FOR PETITIONER

[Doc. 69]

On December 22, 2003, the Ninth Circuit vacated the order denying Petitioner’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus and remanded the matter back to this court to conduct an evidentiary

hearing. On May 27, 2004, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding the issues

raised by the Ninth Circuit. On January 21, 2005, the Court issued an order denying the petition

and judgment was entered that same day.

On July 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent filed an opposition on August 2,

2005. 

On July 29, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice to the Court regarding appointment of separate

counsel for Petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel, Carolyn Wiggin, indicates that Petitioner has

recently submitted a pro se pleading to the Ninth Circuit complaining of the Office of the Federal

Defender’s conduct in this case. Counsel reasons that if the Court deems it appropriate, outside

counsel could be appointed for Petitioner either to take over the entire case or to appear at the

Case 1:99-cv-05445-DLB Document 74 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 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

2

August 19, 2005, hearing to argue the third point in the motion for relief from judgment, that

counsel was ineffective. 

Petitioner’s request is premature at this juncture. Depending on the outcome of

Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment, the Court cannot, at this time, determine whether

outside counsel is necessary. Thus, the request is denied, without prejudice.

IT I S SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05445-DLB Document 74 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2