Lacy v. Miyamoto
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:21-cv-03377
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lacy v. Miyamoto, Judge Gilliam granted more time but denied counsel and discovery in Lacy’s habeas case.
Roy Donovan Lacy, the self-represented habeas petitioner, received additional time to oppose the motion to dismiss but was denied appointed counsel and discovery. Paul Miyamoto’s motion to dismiss remained pending under the schedule set by the court.
What happened
Lacy v. Miyamoto concerns Roy Donovan Lacy’s request for federal review of his 2016 second-degree-murder conviction. Lacy, who was representing himself and housed in jail, asked for more time to oppose the respondent’s request to dismiss his case for failure to exhaust state remedies, as well as appointed counsel and discovery.
The court granted Lacy an extension until December 13, 2021, to file his opposition. It denied his requests for appointed counsel and discovery, explaining that the exhaustion issue was mainly a straightforward legal question and that discovery was not needed to brief it.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied appointment of counsel without prejudice to appointing counsel later if circumstances required it. The court did not decide whether Lacy was entitled to habeas relief or whether his claims were exhausted.
The detailed version
- Lacy v. Miyamoto · No. 3:21-cv-03377
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 15, 2021
Background
Roy Donovan Lacy, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2016 conviction for second-degree murder. The court had previously found that the petition raised potentially valid federal claims involving a Miranda violation, admission of a statement made in a separate case, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The respondent moved to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state-court remedies, arguing that the ineffective-assistance claim had not been presented to the state courts. The respondent argued either that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice as to all claims or that Lacy should amend it to proceed only on an exhausted claim. The opinion addresses only Lacy’s request for more time to oppose that motion, along with his requests for appointed counsel and discovery.
Rulings
The court granted Lacy’s request for an extension of time. It ordered him to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss by December 13, 2021. The respondent’s reply was due 14 days after the opposition was filed, and the motion would then be submitted without a hearing.
The court denied Lacy’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required it. The court explained that the right to appointed counsel under the Sixth Amendment does not apply in habeas proceedings, although federal law permits discretionary appointment when the interests of justice require it. The court found no circumstances requiring counsel at that time and described the exhaustion issue as a primarily legal and straightforward question.
The court also denied Lacy’s request for discovery, reasoning that discovery was not needed to brief the exhaustion issue because it was primarily a legal issue rather than a factual one.
Effect of the Order
This order resolved Docket No. 7, but it did not decide the respondent’s motion to dismiss, whether Lacy exhausted his state remedies, or whether he was entitled to habeas relief. The order was a procedural ruling about briefing time, counsel, and discovery.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.