Hildebrand v. Campbell
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-01791
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hildebrand v. Campbell, Judge Freeman granted an addendum, denied counsel without prejudice, and extended Hildebrand’s deadline to oppose Campbell’s pending dismissal motion.
Michael Hildebrand may file an addendum, must oppose the dismissal motion by October 23, 2024, and was denied appointed counsel without prejudice. Trisha Campbell must respond under the new briefing schedule.
What happened
In Hildebrand v. Campbell, Michael Hildebrand, a California state prisoner, asked the federal court to review his case through a habeas petition. The court had identified a possible filing-deadline problem, and Campbell moved to dismiss the petition, including on timeliness grounds.
The court granted Hildebrand’s request to file an addendum addressing the timeliness issue. It denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice because an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary at that stage and his circumstances were not exceptional. The court also extended his deadline to oppose the dismissal motion until October 23, 2024.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on September 20, 2024. The order did not decide Campbell’s motion to dismiss or the merits of Hildebrand’s habeas petition.
The detailed version
- Hildebrand v. Campbell · No. 5:24-cv-01791
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
Michael Hildebrand, identified as a California state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court found that the petition presented a timeliness issue and ordered Trisha Campbell to respond. Campbell later moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds, including timeliness.
Rulings
The court granted Hildebrand’s motion to file an addendum addressing the timeliness bar.
The court denied Hildebrand’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas proceedings and that appointment of counsel is discretionary. At that stage, an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary, and the circumstances did not warrant appointed counsel. The court stated that it could reconsider the issue if an evidentiary hearing later became necessary to review the merits of Hildebrand’s claims.
The court granted Hildebrand an extension of time to oppose Campbell’s motion to dismiss. His opposition was due by October 23, 2024, and Campbell was required to file and serve a reply within 14 days after receiving the opposition, including a response to the addendum.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the motions to file the addendum and for appointment of counsel, and set a new briefing schedule. It did not rule on Campbell’s motion to dismiss or decide the merits of Hildebrand’s habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.