Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00001-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Elizabeth Schipke
Petitioner
United States of America
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mary Elizabeth Schipke, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0001-TUC-CKJ

No. CR-04-02195-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

On January 4, 2010, Petitioner Mary Elizabeth Schipke (“Petitioner”), who was

confined in the Federal Medical Center at Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, filed a pro se

“Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in

Federal Custody” (Doc. 1). On May 27, 2010, the Government filed its Response (Doc. 11).

On October 21, 2011, Magistrate Judge Velasco issued a Report and Recommendation (“R

& R”) (Doc. 27) recommending denial of the petition. On November 28, 2011, Petitioner

filed her Objections to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge – 10-21-11 and

Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 31 & 32) and on December 2, 2011 she filed an

Emergency Motion for Financial Assistance Under the Criminal Justice Act (Doc. 33).

I. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Petitioner seeks financial assistance to litigate the instant case, as well as the

appointment of counsel to administer the funds. Pet.’s Emergency Mot. for Financial Assist.

Under the CJRA (Doc. 33) at 1. Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act

(“CJA”). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 35 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 5
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 -

“[T]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.”

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). “Indigent state prisoners applying

for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a

particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process

violations.” Id. (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam);

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965); see also Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d

425, 428-29 (9th Cir. 1993) (“the district court abuses its discretion when the case is so

complex that due process violations will occur absent the presence of counsel.”) Further, the

Court may appoint counsel when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2). 

Additionally, the rules governing habeas proceedings mandate the appointment of

counsel "[i]f necessary for effective discovery . . ." or "[i]f an evidentiary hearing is

warranted . . . ." Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 6(a) & 8(c); see also Knaubert v.

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting "that unless an evidentiary hearing is

held, an attorney's skill . . . is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on the

state court record alone."). In determining whether to request the assistance of an attorney,

the Court considers the "likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the [plaintiff]

to articulate [his] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved."

Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d

952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Finally, the CJA provides that “[c]ounsel for a person who is

financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate

representation may request them in an ex parte application. Upon finding, after appropriate

inquiry in an ex parte proceeding, that the services are necessary and that the person is

financially unable to obtain them, the court . . . shall authorize counsel to obtain the

services.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1).

Petitioner seeks the appointment of counsel and financial assistance for obtaining legal

copies. Petitioner has failed to make any showing that investigative, expert or other services

as contemplated by Section 3006A(e)(1) are necessary or required. Moreover, Petitioner has

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 35 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 5
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

Petitioner has not filed an application for in forma pauperis status pursuant to Section 1915,

Title 28, of the United States Code.

- 3 -

demonstrated that she is capable of filing voluminous records with this Court, but cannot

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.1

 Accordingly, the Court finds that

Petitioner is not entitled CJA funds, and her motion (Doc. 33) is denied.

II. HABEAS PETITION

Petitioner’s objections(Doc. 31 & 32) reiterate her objection to the reassignment from

Judge Tashima to this Court. In its October 26, 2011 Order (Doc. 28), this Court addressed

these concerns and directed Petitioner to “actively litigate this case in compliance with this

Court’s previous Orders.” Id. at 3. Additionally, Petitioner seeks additional time to file

additional objections to Magistrate Judge Velasco’s R & R. Pet.’s Obj. to R & R of

Magistrate Judge – 10-21-11 and Mot. for Ext. of Time (Doc. 32) at 2. Petitioner’s reasons

for requiring additional time are based primarily upon “obstruction of justice” because “the

Tucson court grossly neglected to transfer the case file to Judge Tashima[.]” Id. (emphasis

in original). Additionally, she alleges that she needs additional money for legal copies. Id.

The Court finds these arguments without merit. Petitioner was able to file the current

“Objections to Report and Recommendation,” and has not provided any cause for allowing

additional objections.

Magistrate Judge Velasco’s R & R thoroughly explained why Petitioner’s habeas

petition is without merit. Moreover, this Court has reviewed the Petition and attendant

exhibits and records in this case. As such, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Velasco’s

conclusion that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Report and

Recommendation shall be adopted.

. . .

 . . .

 . . .

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 35 Filed 03/28/13 Page 3 of 5
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 -

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, requires that in habeas cases

the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are required in cases concerning detention arising

“out of process issued by a State court”, or in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking

a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Here, the Motion is

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This Court must determine, therefore, if a COA shall

issue.

The standard for issuing a COA is whether the applicant has “made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district

court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy §

2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would

find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). “When the district

court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's

underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. In the certificate, the Court must indicate

which specific issues satisfy the showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a COA, the Court

finds that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong. As such, the Court concludes that a COA shall not issue, as

further proceedings are unwarranted.

Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. See Fed.

R.App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1.

 . . .

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 35 Filed 03/28/13 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ADOPTED;

2) Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

3) Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Court Order for Prison Law Library Time

at FMC-Carswell, etc. (Doc. 26) is DENIED;

4) Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Financial Assistance Under the Criminal

Justice Act (Doc. 33) is DENIED;

5) Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 32) is DENIED; and

6) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close its file in this matter.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2013.

Case 4:10-cv-00001-CKJ Document 35 Filed 03/28/13 Page 5 of 5