Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05010/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05010-9/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)

---

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

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 2/4/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LARRY REDIC,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING POSTJUDGMENT MOTIONS

This is a closed federal habeas action. The petition was denied, and judgment entered

in favor of respondent, on December 10, 2014. (Docket Nos. 82 and 83.) Petitioner since

has filed a Notice of Appeal and three post-judgment motions. 

Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (Docket No. 89) is DENIED as

moot, the Court having declined to issue one, as stated in the order denying the petition. His

motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 90) is DENIED. There is no right to

counsel in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.

1986). A district court is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) to 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. The decision to

Case 3:08-cv-05010-RS Document 93 Filed 02/03/15 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

No. C 08-5010 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS

appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court, see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), and should be granted only when exceptional circumstances are

present. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and

Procedure § 12.3b at 383–86 (2d ed. 1994). Petitioner has not shown that there are

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 91) is DENIED. The motion

contains no showing of newly-discovered evidence, or that the Court committed clear error

or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or that there was an intervening

change in controlling law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum

Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland,

255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)). Nor does the motion contain a showing of

newly-discovered evidence, nor does it set forth any mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

excusable neglect, fraud by the adverse party, or voiding of the judgment; petitioner offers no

other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 89, 90, and 91. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05010-RS Document 93 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2