Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01482/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01482-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARISSA SCHUSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL, GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO 

BRIEF LUNA V. KERNAN (ECF No. 40)

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. 

I.

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 30). On February 20, 2015, the District 

Judge issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the Findings and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 36). However, because McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 

(2013), was decided after the Findings and Recommendation was issued, the District Judge has 

permitted the parties to brief the application of McQuiggin to the instant case. The District 

Judge referred the matter back to the undersigned for briefing with respect to McQuiggin, and for 

the undersigned to issue a Findings and Recommendation regarding the application of 

Case 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2

McQuiggin to this case. The District Judge also indicated that if the undersigned believes that 

relevant facts were not adequately considered in the Findings and Recommendation, then as part 

of the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendation regarding McQuiggin, the undersigned may 

issue amended findings regarding equitable tolling. 

On February 24, 2015, the undersigned set a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 37 at 2). On 

May 8, 2015, Petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw as attorney of record. (ECF No. 40). 

Petitioner also asked the Court to appoint counsel and for the opportunity to brief additional 

issues in light of Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 60 (9th Cir. 2015). (ECF No. 40). On June 3, 2015, 

the Court vacated the hearing date and took the matter under submission. (ECF No. 42).

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Pursuant to Local Rule 182(d), counsel may not “withdraw leaving the client in propria

persona without leave of Court upon noticed motion and written notice to the client and all other 

parties who have appeared. Counsel is required to provide an affidavit stating that the current or 

last known address or addresses of the client and efforts made to notify the client of the motion 

to withdraw.” 

Here, Mr. Nuttall has notified all parties of the motion to withdraw and has provided the 

Court with an affidavit of Petitioner’s current address. (ECF No. 40 at 7). Therefore, Mr. 

Nuttall has complied with Local Rule 182(d). In addition, Respondent takes no position with 

respect to Petitioner’s counsel’s request to withdraw as attorney of record. (ECF No. 43 at 3). 

Therefore, the Court will grant Mr. Nuttall’s motion to withdraw as Petitioner’s attorney.

B. Petitioner’s Motion to Allow Additional Briefing

Petitioner requests the opportunity to brief the issue of equitable tolling in the present 

case based upon the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 

2015). (ECF No. 40 at 2, 4-6). As the parties are going to submit briefing on whether 

McQuiggin has some bearing on the timeliness of the petition, the Court will permit the parties 

to also brief whether Luna has some bearing on the timeliness of the petition. 

Case 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

C. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel because she is indigent, the legal issues are 

complex, and she does not have legal training. (ECF No. 40 at 4). There currently exists no 

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 

258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). 

However, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 

counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional 

circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

In the present case, the Court has reviewed the record and finds that the interests of 

justice would be served by appointment of counsel at this time due to Petitioner’s indigency and 

lack of legal training and given the complexity of the issues involved with respect to Petitioner’s 

briefing on whether McQuiggin and Luna have some bearing on the timeliness of the petition. 

Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. Pursuant to General Order No. 186 of the Eastern District of California, which is the 

amended Federal Defender Plan for the Eastern District of California, the matter will be referred 

to the Federal Defender’s Office to find Petitioner counsel. 

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Nuttall’s motion to withdraw as Petitioner’s counsel is GRANTED;

2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is GRANTED;

3. The matter is hereby referred to the Federal Defender’s Office to find counsel for 

Petitioner;

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Assistant Federal 

Defender David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender Peggy Sasso, and Fresno panel 

Case 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

administrator Connie Garcia of the Federal Defender’s Office;

5. Appointed counsel shall file a notice of appearance with this Court within fourteen 

(14) days from the date of service of this order and counsel shall contact the Clerk’s 

Office to make arrangements for copies of any relevant documents;

6. Petitioner’s motion to allow additional briefing regarding the application of Luna is 

GRANTED;

7. Petitioner’s counsel shall file a brief regarding the application of McQuiggin and 

Luna within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this order; 

8. Respondent shall file a response to Petitioner’s brief regarding the application of 

McQuiggin and Luna within thirty (30) days of the date Petitioner’s brief is filed 

with the Court; and

9. Petitioner may file a reply to Respondent’s response brief within (14) days after 

Respondent’s response is served. 

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless 

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(l). All provisions of Local Rule 110 are 

applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB Document 45 Filed 06/26/15 Page 4 of 4