Ayers v. Burton
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-05806
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ayers v. Burton, Judge Freeman clarified the required habeas form, denied counsel, and extended time to amend the parole petition.
Bobby Ray Ayers, who received the correct § 2254 form and 28 additional days to file an amended petition but was denied appointed counsel or a guardian ad litem; the clerk was directed to send the forms.
What happened
In Ayers v. Burton, Bobby Ray Ayers asked the court to clarify whether he needed to file a habeas petition or a civil-rights complaint. The court found that the wrong form had been attached to its earlier order and instructed him to disregard it.
The court denied Ayers’s request for a lawyer or a guardian ad litem because his supporting declaration from another prisoner did not show a substantial question about his ability to litigate. The court directed the clerk to send the correct petition form and gave Ayers 28 days to file an amended petition.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order did not decide whether Ayers was entitled to parole or otherwise resolve his challenge. It granted the clarification request, denied the request for counsel or a guardian ad litem, and granted more time to amend the petition.
The detailed version
- Ayers v. Burton · No. 5:21-cv-05806
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
Bobby Ray Ayers, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole. In an earlier order, the court dismissed that petition with leave to amend and denied his request for appointed counsel. Ayers then moved for clarification and again sought counsel or a guardian ad litem based on what he called his mental-health status.
Court’s Rulings
The court granted the motion for clarification. Ayers asked whether he should file a petition under § 2254 or a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court determined that a clerical error had caused the wrong court form—a § 1983 complaint form—to be attached to the earlier order. It told Ayers to disregard that form and directed the clerk to send him the correct § 2254 petition form, including two copies.
The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem. Ayers said that he was receiving mental-health care, taking psychiatric medication, and was incompetent to litigate. But the court found that a declaration from another incarcerated person, rather than a mental-health professional, was insufficient to raise a substantial question about his competence and trigger further court inquiry.
The court also granted an extension of time to file an amended petition. Ayers was allowed to amend his filing to address the deficiencies identified in the earlier dismissal order and was required to file the amended petition within 28 days after this order was filed. The order terminated Docket No. 9. It did not decide the merits of Ayers’s challenge to the denial of parole.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.