Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02521/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02521-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE, No. CIV S-09-2521-LKK-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are: (1) petitioner’s

amended petitions (Docs. 14 and 17): (2) petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docs.

15 and 20); and (3) petitioner’s “Motion to be Heard” (Doc. 19). 

The action was commenced with a petition filed on September 1, 2009 (Doc. 1),

apparently challenging the denial of parole. That petition failed to name the correct respondent

and was dismissed with leave to amend. On October 26, 2009, petitioner filed an amended

petition (Doc. 14), also apparently challenging the denial of parole. On February 16, 2010,

petitioner filed a second amended petition (Doc. 17), which appears to challenge a 1980

conviction from the Fresno County Superior Court. Given petitioner’s filings, it is unclear

Case 2:09-cv-02521-LKK -DAD Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

2

whether he intends through this action to challenge the denial of parole or his underlying

conviction. Petitioner will be provided an opportunity to elect to proceed on either the October

2009 amended petition or the February 2010 amended petition. Petitioner is cautioned that

failure to notify the court of his election within the time provided may result in dismissal of the

entire action. See Local Rule 110. 

Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel. Given that it is unclear what claims

petitioner is raising, the court finds that it would be inappropriate to consider the appointment of

counsel at this time. Petitioner’s motions will be denied without prejudice to renewal at a later

date. 

Finally, petitioner appears to seek a court hearing on his claims. Petitioner is

advised that typically habeas corpus matters are decided without an in-court hearing. On

appropriate motion and for good cause shown, the court may conduct an evidentiary hearing. In

the meantime, petitioner’s “Motion to be Heard” will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docs. 15 and 20) are

denied;

2. Petitioner’s “Motion to be Heard” (Doc. 19) is denied; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of this order, petitioner shall inform the court

whether he intends to proceed on the October 2009 amended petition or February 2010 amended

petition.

DATED: March 17, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02521-LKK -DAD Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2