Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05994/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05994-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernest Lee Allen
Petitioner
Art Calderon
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ART CALDERON,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 01-5994 OWW DLB HC

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL AND

DIRECTING COUNSEL TO FILE BRIEF

PURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCUIT’S REMAND

[Doc. 28]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 2, 2001. On

February 11, 2002, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed for lack of an original signature. Petitioner filed an amended petition which contained

an original signature on February 28, 2002. On April 2, 2002, the Court issued an order to show

cause why the amended petition should not be dismissed for failing to exhaust the state court

remedies. After the grant of an extension of time, Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s

order. Therefore, on July 3, 2002, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s order. On July

16, 2002, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, and on July 25, 2002,

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. On July 30, 2002, the Court

denied Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel, and on August 22, 2002, the action

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 29 Filed 06/15/05 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

27

28

2

was dismissed and judgment was entered. 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September

25, 2002. On May 27, 2005, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the action.

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s remand, the appointment of counsel is necessary for

resolution of this case. Therefore, the Office of the Federal Defender will be appointed to

represent Petitioner. 

Petitioner shall, through appointed counsel, file a brief addressing whether, pursuant to

Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is

necessary and, if so, who the designated individual shall be. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Office of the Federal Defender is ORDERED to represent Petitioner;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall

submit briefing on whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of filing of Petitioner’s briefing,

Respondent may file a response; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Office of the

Federal Defender, David M. Porter, 801 I Street, 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA,

95814. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 29 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2