Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

06dp0942.OApptgCo-Counsel.SanNic.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY JESSE SAN NICOLAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, as Acting Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-00942-AWI 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER APPOINTING INTERIM COUNSEL

On January 18, 2007, the Court directed attorney Wesley A. Van Winkle to address the potential

for a conflict of interest regarding his appointment to represent Petitioner Rodney Jesse San Nicolas

(“San Nicolas”) in this federal habeas corpus action. The prospect of a potential conflict follows from

the fact that Mr. Van Winkle represented San Nicolas before the California Supreme Court in both direct

appeal and post-conviction proceedings. 

Mr. Van Winkle filed a declaration under seal addressing the issue of conflict of interest on

January 22, 2007. The Court has evaluated Mr. Van Winkle’s declaration, and in an order previously

filed underseal, concluded that Mr. Van Winkle’s appointment as co-counsel in this federal proceeding

will not lead to a conflict of interest that will later require his withdrawal from the case. A further

submission filed under seal on January 31, 2007 from the Office of the Federal Defender has been

considered in the present order. Based on the record before the Court, the recommendation of the

Selection Board to appoint Mr. Van Winkle as interim counsel in this matter is accepted. The

appointment of Mr. Van Winkle shall be retroactive to January 24, 2007. 

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 19 Filed 02/02/07 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

06dp0942.OApptgCo-Counsel.SanNic.wpd 2

Upon receipt of this order, Mr. Van Winkle is directed to familiarize himself with the Guide to

Case Management and Budgeting in Capital Habeas Cases, Eastern District of California, Fresno

Division (hereafter the “Attorney Guide”). Counsel for the Warden also is encouraged to become

familiar with the Guide, most recently updated in January 2007, and posted on the Court’s web-page

(under Fresno, “Attorney Info,” Forms).

As no reimbursement rate has been established for Mr. Van Winkle, setting that rate should be

a priority. To assist the Court in establishing his reimbursement rate, Mr. Van Winkle should review

paragraph 8 of the Attorney Guide, complete the Rate Justification Worksheet (Appendix A to the

Attorney Guide), and as much or all of the Confidential Case Evaluation Form (Appendix B to the

Attorney Guide) as is possible. Counsel for the Warden also is asked to complete the Confidential Case

Evaluation Form. The Court will maintain each Confidential Case Evaluation Form under seal, unless

the party filing the Form elects to file it publicly. It is the Court’s experience that petitioners’ attorneys

file their clients’ Case Evaluation Forms under seal and that the Warden’s attorneys file Case Evaluation

Forms publicly. The AttorneyGuide specifies that justification for the appointment of two lawyers who

truly function as co-counsel to one another will be required, particularly if both attorneys are seeking the

higher co-counsel rate, and even if one of the attorneys is the Federal Defender. Mr. Van Winkle shall

append the Rate Justification Worksheet and the Confidential Case Evaluation Form to this application

to establish a rate of reimbursement. The reimbursement rate application will be filed under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2007 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 19 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 2