Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04845/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eliot Scott Grizzle
Petitioner
Robert Horel
Respondent

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIOT SCOTT GRIZZLE,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT HOREL,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4845 SI

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY;

GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

I. Motion for stay and abeyance

Petitioner has filed a motion to stay and abey this petition to allow him to exhaust certain

claims in state court. Petitioner states that his original habeas corpus attorney filed a petition in state

court on September 11, 2002, on or about the last day for filing such a petition. The AEDPA time

clock has been tolled since that time while the state habeas corpus proceedings have been pending. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 244(d)(2). Petitioner states that his state court petition is currently pending before

the California Supreme Court, and that he filed the instant petition “out of an abundance of caution,

in case there is a delay between the time the California Supreme Court denies his petition for review

and the time he learns of the denial.” Motion at 3. The Court finds that petitioner has satisfied the

requirements set forth in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005), for a stay of this habeas

action. 

 Accordingly, this action is STAYED and the clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

the action. Nothing further will take place in this action until petitioner exhausts the unexhausted

claims and, within thirty days of doing so, moves to reopen this action, lift the Court’s stay and

proceed with consideration of his habeas petition. Petitioner must promptly return to federal court

Case 3:07-cv-04845-SI Document 3 Filed 10/18/07 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

after his state court proceedings have concluded. If petitioner does not return within thirty days of

exhausting the unexhausted claims, dismissal is possible. See Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1071

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1042 (2003). 

II. Motion for appointment of counsel

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. The

motion was filed by Benjamin Coleman, Esq., who is representing petitioner in the state habeas

corpus proceedings. Mr. Coleman states that petitioner is indigent, has been incarcerated for

virtually his entire adult life, and that petitioner’s family does not have the resources to retain

counsel for petitioner. Motion at 2. 

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), cert.

denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). 

The Court finds that petitioner’s claims raise complex legal issues, and, based upon Mr.

Coleman’s sworn representations, that petitioner is unable to financially retain counsel. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, and APPOINTS

Benjamin L. Coleman and Ethan A. Balogh as petitioner’s counsel. (Docket No. 2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04845-SI Document 3 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 2