Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02705/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02705-12/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAUL MITCHELL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BRIAN DUFFY, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 11-cv-02705-SBA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner acting pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The operative petition is Petitioner’s first amended petition (“FAP”). 

Dkt. 75. This matter is now before the Court on Respondent’s motion to dismiss the FAP 

for failure to exhaust state remedies. Dkt. 80. Also before the Court is Petitioner’s motion 

for reconsideration of the denial of his renewed motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 

89. 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

On May 27, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner’s renewed request for appointment of 

counsel upon finding that the interests of justice did not require such an appointment. Dkt. 

81 at 2. On September 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a letter again requesting appointment of 

counsel, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its May 27, 2015 

ruling. Dkt. 89. 

In this District, a party must seek and obtain leave of court prior to filing a motion 

for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9. Under Local Rule 7-9, the movant must show a 

material change in fact or law or that a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material 

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such 

interlocutory order.” Id. 7-9(b). Here, Petitioner failed to comply with Local Rule 7-9, 

which, standing alone, is sufficient to deny his motion. Tri-Valley CARES v. U.S. Dept. 

of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a 

Case 4:11-cv-02705-SBA Document 95 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”).1 Even if the 

motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration, Petitioner fails to make the requisite showing under Local Rule 7-9. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice require the 

appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (a)(2)(B) (authorizing district court to 

appoint counsel whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require”). 

The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 

LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss remains pending on this Court’s docket. On 

October 1, 2015, Petitioner submitted a document styled as, “Traverse to Respondent[’]s 

Motion to Dismiss,” which the Court construes to be his opposition to the motion to 

dismiss. Dkt. 91. In his opposition, Petitioner indicates that he has been waiting for the 

Court to rule on “a motion he [had] submitted to the court.” Dkt. 91 at 1. Though not 

entirely clear, Petitioner appears to refer to his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner also 

claims that his “priority access” to the prison’s law library was “rescinded” and 

“contribute[d] to the substandard format of [his] traverse.” Id. at 1. Petitioner requests the 

Court to “respond to the motion he sent . . . .” Id. at 6. 

In view of the Court’s ruling on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, his request 

for a ruling on that motion is DENIED as moot. Since it appears that Petitioner did not file 

a substantive response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss due to the pendency of his 

motion for reconsideration, the Court, in the interests of justice, GRANTS Petitioner 

additional time to file an opposition that addresses the merits of Respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. Petitioner shall file a supplemental opposition no later than twenty-eight (28) 

days from the date of this Order. Respondent shall file a supplemental reply no later than 

fourteen (14) days after the date the supplemental opposition is filed. No further 

extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent circumstances.

 

1 Pro se litigants are obligated to follow the same rules as represented parties. See Ghazali 

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 4:11-cv-02705-SBA Document 95 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/1/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

Senior United States District Judge 

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.11\Mitchell2705.DenyReconsAttyDenial&GrantLv2FileSuppOppn_v2.docx

Case 4:11-cv-02705-SBA Document 95 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 3