Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02211/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02211-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND P. IDLEMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2211 FCD GGH P 

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER and FINDINGS &

 / RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed on July 14, 2005, petitioner was ordered to show cause for his

failure to file a third amended petition and for why the stay imposed in this matter should not be

lifted and why, thereafter, this action should not either be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to file

a third amended petition within a reasonable period of time or why the matter should not simply

proceed upon the claims filed in the second amended petition. Petitioner’s case has been stayed

since June 16, 2003, for two and one-half years at this point. In the June 16, 2003 order adopting

this court’s April 16, 2003 Findings and Recommendations recommending a stay of petitioner’s

second amended petition pending exhaustion, petitioner was “directed to file a third amended

petition containing all of his claims immediately upon exhaustion of his unexhausted claims in

the highest state court.” Order, filed on June 16, 2003, p. 2. 

Petitioner’s only response to the court’s order has been that the issues are complex

and cause a strain upon him and that he has a mental handicap for which he takes medication

Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 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

twice a day. He also seeks appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s response is simply inadequate

and the court does not find that, in this case and on this showing, that appointment of counsel is

warranted. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. 

Petitioner has made no effort to show that he has taken any steps whatever in

attempting to exhaust any unexhausted claims in the more than two years that have elapsed since

the stay was imposed. See Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005)

(“[e]ven where stay and abeyance is appropriate, the district court’s discretion in structuring the

stay is limited by the timeliness concerns reflected in AEDPA”). The court will now

recommend lifting the stay imposed and proceeding on the second amended petition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s September 2, 2005

request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the stay in this matter imposed on June 16, 2003 be

lifted and this matter proceed on the second amended petition, filed on April 2, 2003. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 1/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:009

idle2211.sac

Case 2:02-cv-02211-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 3