Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00382/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00382-7/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

 Because counsel failed to direct this “motion for reconsideration” to the district judge,

1

pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(c), the undersigned has construed the request, filed on the

same day as the order was filed granting partial payment, as directed to this court to reconsider its

order. Of course, counsel is free to seek reconsideration by the district judge of this and/or the

prior order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ANTHONY BREWER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0382 GEB GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner’s counsel has sought reconsideration of this court’s order, filed on 1

November 28, 2006, partially granting interim (hardship) payments to him in the amount of 

$11,886.73. While petitioner’s attorney, assigned only recently to the federal panel as he asserts,

does not fault this court for its reasoning in trimming $10,000 from his request, he objects to “the

timeliness of the court’s notification,” apparently with regard to what was expected by the court

with regard to reviewing the state record in this matter. Counsel avers that he contacted “federal

billing personnel” and two attorneys who practice in the field. He faults the billing personnel for

Case 2:06-cv-00382-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 12/01/06 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

2

failing to provide insight into how he should approach this case. However, it would have been

wholly inappropriate for such individuals to have purported to have provided legal advice. 

Counsel also states that two attorneys who practiced in the field told him to approach this matter

as though he were handling an initial state appeal.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(d)(2), the maximum compensation to be paid to

counsel for a criminal defendant before the federal court “shall not exceed $7,000 for each

attorney in a case in which one or more felonies are charged....” In the case of “representation

of a petitioner in a non-capital habeas proceeding, the compensation for each attorney shall not

exceed the amount applicable to a felony in this paragraph for representation of a defendant

before a judicial officer of the district court.” Id. Such limitations may be waived only “for

extended or complex representation whenever the court in which the representation was

rendered, or the United States magistrate judge ... certifies that the amount of the excess payment

is necessary to provide fair compensation and the payment is approved by the chief judge of the

circuit.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(d)(3). This court has approved compensation in excess of the

amount to be allocated for representation of a non-capital petitioner and an amended petition has

yet to be filed. The court, having considered petitioner’s November 28, 2006, request for

reconsideration of its November 28, 2006, under the present circumstances cannot alter the

amount set forth in its prior order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 12/1/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

brew382.rec

Case 2:06-cv-00382-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 2