Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by

GREGORY CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. DOUG WADDINGTON Respondent.

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

KAREN STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge

This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 15).

Before the court is respondents motion for a more definite statement, (Dkt. # 22), and petitioner's motion asking that the last three pages of his petition be struck from the record and that he be appointed counsel. (Dkt. # 23).

Respondent notes that the last three pages of the petition are pleadings from a state court brief that raise issues that are not in the body of the petition itself. (Dkt. # 22). Respondent asks that petitioner provide a concise statement of the claims. In response petitioner asks to strike the last three page of his petition from the record.

Petitioner has provided clarification by way of his motion. He indicated he did not intend to raise additional issues by including the state briefing. The court holds that the last three pages of the petition were not intended to raise issues independent from the body of the form petition. Thus, respondents motion is GRANTED. However, the court believes the clarification now provided is sufficient.

The last three pages of the petition will remain in the file but will not be considered by the court. As to the request for counsel, the Court, having reviewed the record, hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required, because the action is civil, not criminal, in nature.See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); and Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. An evidentiary hearing has not been granted in this case. Further, the claims in the petition are adequately set forth and articulated. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 23) is therefore DENIED.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner and counsel for respondent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CHAPMAN v. WIDDINGTON
(Nov 1, 2005)