Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03087/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03087-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH A. ROGERS,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-3087 EMC (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE AND REQUEST FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

Petitioner filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254 to challenge his state court conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder

with premeditation. Respondent has filed an answer and Petitioner has filed a traverse. Rather than

wait for the Court to adjudicate the petition in due course, Petitioner has filed a motion to strike the

answer and a request for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(f) because the answer allegedly provides an insufficient defense and contains “redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, and . . . scandalous matters.” Docket # 30 at 4. Petitioner’s motions reflect

nothing more than his disagreement with Respondent’s arguments as to why the petition should be

denied, but his mere disagreement with his opponent’s position is not a sufficient basis to strike the

opponent’s pleading, nor is it alone a sufficient basis on which to grant judgment on the pleadings. 

Further, even if the answer were stricken, it would not necessarily follow that Petitioner would be

entitled to judgment on the pleadings – the Court still must determine whether the petition is

meritorious. Cf. Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990) (“failure to respond to claims

raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment”). To

Case 3:14-cv-03087-EMC Document 36 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

determine whether the petition is meritorious, it must look beyond the face of the petition and must

consider the state court’s adjudication of the merits of the claims, with the deference required by 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d) and (e). The motion to strike the answer and request for judgment on the pleadings

are DENIED. Docket # 29, # 30. 

Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district

court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the

interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district

court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only

when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent

due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this

action. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket # 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03087-EMC Document 36 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 2