Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05799/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05799-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Overstreet
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD OVERSTREET, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-cv-05799-REC-TAG HC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. 28)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL (Doc. 29)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PETITIONER BLANK FORM

PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 4, 2004, Petitioner filed the original federal habeas petition in this case, raising two

grounds for relief: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to object to allegedly improper

expert testimony; and (2) the victim’s testimony was tainted because the victim admitted in court to

lying about the abuse, yet the court allowed her testimony. (Doc. 1). On October 15, 2004,

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the grounds that Petitioner had failed to

exhaust state court remedies with respect to Ground Two. (Doc. 10). On October 25, 2004,

Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend the Petition seeking leave to withdraw the unexhausted claim. 

(Doc. 11). On December 29, 2004, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to withdraw the

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 30 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

unexhausted claim and recommended that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied. (Doc. 12). 

On February 8, 2005, the District Judge adopted in full the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17). 

On February 3, 2005, Petitioner filed an amended petition that omitted the unexhausted

claim. (Doc. 15). At the same time, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings on the amended

petition to permit Petitioner to exhaust the unexhausted claim in state court. (Doc. 16). The Court

granted this motion on May 23, 2005. (Doc. 18). In that Order, the Court required Petitioner to file

periodic status reports and, when his state court claims were finally exhausted, to seek leave of this

Court before filing an amended petition. (Id.). On November 23, 2005, Petitioner filed his motion

for leave to file an amended petition, indicating therein that his state court claims are now exhausted. 

(Doc. 28). Concurrently, Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 29). 

DISCUSSION

A. Leave to Amend.

Consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent, this Court had previously granted a stay of

proceedings on this exhausted petition to permit Petitioner to exhaust additional claims in state court. 

See Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2004); Ford v. Hubbard, 305 F.3d 875, 882-883

(9th Cir. 2002); James v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 1126-1127 (9th Cir. 2002); Taylor, 134 F.3d 981. 

Petitioner has now advised the Court that the two previously-unexhausted claims have now been

exhausted and that Petitioner seeks leave of Court to amend his petition to include those newlyexhausted claims. Petitioner has, in the Court’s view, presented good cause for granting leave for

such an amendment. 

B. Appointment of Counsel.

Petitioner requests appointment of counsel because he is a layman and cannot afford to hire

an attorney. (Doc. 29). 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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889

(1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However,

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 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. 

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 30 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 3

Petitioner’s professed circumstances, i.e., his indigence and lack of legal training, are far

from unique; indeed, he shares those circumstances with most habeas corpus petitioners that appear

in this Court. Accordingly, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by

the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 29), is DENIED without prejudice; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to file an amended habeas corpus petition that includes the newly

exhausted claims (Doc. 28), is GRANTED. Petitioner must file his amended petition within

thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order. The amended petition should be clearly

and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is advised that the form petition must set

forth all claims for relief, including the facts and arguments in support of those claims. 

Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an amendment is permitted must be

retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or

superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220. Finally, Petitioner should include a copy of his

state habeas corpus petition raising the newly-exhausted claims as well as the order from the

California Supreme Court denying said claims, in order for this Court to evaluate whether the

new claims are in fact exhausted.

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for federal

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05799-LJO -JMD Document 30 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 3