Samayoa v. Hickman
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
The court received a remand from the Ninth Circuit directing it to determine whether the petitioner is financially unable to obtain adequate representation under 18 U.S.C. § 3599. The court ordered the parties to submit briefing on this specific issue by designated deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering briefing on the appointment of additional counsel“Accordingly, pursuant to the remand, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. On or before Friday, September 6, 2019, Petitioner shall submit a brief addressing whether appointment of additional counsel is appropriate under section 3599, specifically including whether Petitioner is financially unable to obtain adequate representation such that appointment is warranted under the statute.” | agree with court The order is a procedural directive to comply with a mandate from the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's previous denial and remanded for a determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3599. The district court's order to brief the specific statutory question identified by the appellate court is the correct procedural step to resolve the remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural scheduling order implementing a remand. It correctly identifies the issue to be briefed based on the Ninth Circuit's opinion. It does not contain substantive legal reasoning because it does not yet decide the merits of the motion for additional counsel; it only sets the stage for that decision.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 RICHARD SAMAYOA, Case No.: 00cv2118-W 14 Petitioner, ORDER PURSUANT TO REMAND 15 v. DIRECTING BRIEFING ON APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL 16 RONALD DAVIS, Warden, COUNSEL 17 Respondent. 18 19 This Court previously issued an Order denying Petitioner’s motion to appoint 20 additional counsel. (See ECF No. 112.) Petitioner appealed the decision, and the Ninth 21 Circuit reversed and remanded the case to this Court “to determine whether appointment 22 of additional counsel to represent Richard Samayoa is appropriate under” 18 U.S.C. § 3599. 23 Samayoa v. Davis, 928 F.3d 1127, 1128 (9th Cir. July 3, 2019). According to the Ninth 24 Circuit, the primary issue under the statute “is whether a petitioner is ‘financially unable’ 25 to obtain adequate representation….” Id. at 1132. Accordingly, pursuant to the remand, 26 the Court ORDERS as follows: 27 1. On or before Friday, September 6, 2019, Petitioner shall submit a brief 28 addressing whether appointment of additional counsel is appropriate under 1 section 3599, specifically including whether Petitioner is financially unable to 2 obtain adequate representation such that appointment is warranted under the 3 statute. 4 2. Respondent may file a response on or before Friday, September 20, 2019. 5 3. Petitioner may file a reply on or before Friday, September 27, 2019. 6 Unless the Court orders otherwise, the matter will be decided on the pleadings. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 21, 2019 \ pe lnLor 10 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan ll Unted States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Richard Samayoa v. Ron Davis 18-56047 · 2019-07-03