Parsons v. Lizarraga
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:14-cv-04833
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Parsons v. Lizarraga, Judge Gilliam denied appeal fee-waiver and counsel requests and revoked Parsons’s fee-waiver status.
Aaron Atlee Parsons was denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal and was denied appointed appellate counsel; his existing fee-waiver status was revoked. The case remains closed.
What happened
In Parsons v. Lizarraga, Aaron Atlee Parsons, a prisoner representing himself, asked to appeal without paying court fees and requested a lawyer for the appeal. His underlying petition challenged his custody, but the court had previously found it untimely, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that finding.
The court denied both requests. It concluded that the appeal was frivolous because the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that Parsons’s state petitions were not properly filed and that his federal petition was untimely by 228 days. The court also found that appointing a lawyer was not required because the appeal lacked merit.
The court denied Parsons’s request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, denied his request for appointed counsel on appeal, and revoked his existing fee-waiver status. The case remains closed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Parsons v. Lizarraga · No. 4:14-cv-04833
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
Aaron Atlee Parsons, who was representing himself and was incarcerated at Valley State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court custody. The district court previously dismissed the petition as untimely. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Parsons was not entitled to statutory tolling—the rule that pauses the federal filing deadline while a properly filed state habeas petition is pending—because his state petitions were not properly filed. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the federal petition was untimely by 228 days.
After the California Supreme Court decided Robinson v. Lewis, Parsons asked the district court to reopen the case. He argued that Robinson’s 120-day safe harbor for delays between state habeas petitions made his federal petition timely. On February 14, 2022, the district court denied that request, explaining that Robinson did not apply because the Ninth Circuit had already determined that Parsons’s state petitions were not properly filed. Parsons then appealed that denial.
Requests on Appeal
Parsons requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required court fees, and asked the court to appoint counsel for his appeal. He argued that he had no money and that his placement in protective custody and isolation limited his access to the law library.
Court’s Reasoning
The court denied permission to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), finding that the appeal was frivolous. It explained that Robinson concerned the length of a gap between properly filed state habeas petitions, while the Ninth Circuit had found that Parsons’s state petitions were not properly filed, including because a state court had dismissed a petition as untimely. Therefore, Robinson did not make Parsons’s federal petition timely.
The court also denied appointed counsel. It stated that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to habeas proceedings. Although 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) permits a court to appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation, the court found that justice did not require counsel because Parsons’s appeal lacked merit.
Disposition
The court denied Parsons’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, denied his request for appointment of counsel on appeal, and revoked his existing in forma pauperis status. The case remains closed, and the clerk was directed to send the order to the Court of Appeals.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.