Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02416/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02416-18/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE MAX BARNETT, No. CIV S-99-2416-RRB-CMK

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR.,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 10, 2007, and December 13, 2007, two documents (Docs. 241 and

242) were submitted by petitioner pro se, without the advice or assistance of appointed counsel. 

These documents purported to be motions to relieve appointed counsel, proceed pro se, and

abandon the instant habeas corpus action. On January 4, 2008, the court issued an order directing

appointed counsel to respond to petitioner’s pro se submissions. In particular, the court cited

Comer v. Schriro, 480 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2007), in which the Ninth Circuit recently addressed a

death row inmate’s request to abandon his appeals in favor of immediate execution. 

/ / /

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 246 Filed 02/04/08 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

This request will be granted. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to file the 1

response submitted by counsel on January 30, 2008, under seal. 

2

Appointed counsel have submitted a response, which they request be filed under

seal (see Doc. 245). Without revealing confidential information contained in counsel’s 1

response, the court finds that counsel make it clear that petitioner’s pro se submissions do not

reflect a sincere desire to relieve appointed counsel and abandon this case. Counsel’s

representations to the court are based on their recent communications with petitioner and are

consistent with prior pro se submissions. Therefore, the court concludes that there is no need to

address petitioner’s pro se filings in light of the standards set forth in Comer. They will be

disregarded (see e.g. Doc. 203). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Counsel’s motion (Doc. 245) requesting that their January 30, 2008,

response be filed under seal is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the January 30, 2008, response

under seal; and

3. Petitioner’s pro se submissions (Docs. 241 and 242) are disregarded and

the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate them as pending motions on the court’s docket.

DATED: February 1, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 246 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2