Calderon v. Covello
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-03881
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Calderon v. Covello, Judge Freeman denied Calderon’s motion, keeping his habeas cases separate and denying related requests, including appointed counsel.
Juan Carlos Calderon’s pending federal habeas case and his requests to combine it with another case, obtain a stay or equitable tolling, receive other relief, and obtain appointed counsel.
What happened
Juan Carlos Calderon, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to combine this case with another habeas case and to grant several forms of relief. His requests included equitable tolling, a stay, injunctions, and appointment of counsel.
The court kept the two cases separate because they challenged different issues: one involved the possible untimeliness of challenges to Calderon’s state conviction, while this case involved due-process challenges based on two California laws. The court also said Calderon should raise his equitable-tolling and stay request in the other case and denied the remaining requests as outside this action.
Judge Freeman denied appointment of counsel because a hearing did not appear necessary at this stage and the circumstances were not exceptional. The respondent’s answer remained due February 28, 2023, and the court said it could reconsider counsel if a hearing later became necessary.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. Covello · No. 5:22-cv-03881
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
Juan Carlos Calderon, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state sentence from Santa Clara County Superior Court. The case had been transferred to the Northern District of California from the Eastern District of California. The court had previously found that the petition stated claims that could be considered and had ordered a response from P. Covello, the warden. That response was still pending.
Calderon then filed a document seeking multiple forms of relief. He asked the court to relate this case to another habeas case, grant equitable tolling and a stay, address alleged misconduct and bias by state officials, correct information about his habeas actions, provide other injunctive relief, and appoint counsel.
Separate Habeas Cases
The court denied Calderon’s request to relate the two cases. The other case involved challenges to his state conviction and presented a preliminary timeliness issue because he was sentenced in 1993. This case instead involved due-process challenges to his sentence based on California Senate Bill 1437 and Senate Bill 260. The court concluded that the claims in the two cases were not related and should remain in separate actions.
The court stated that Calderon should present his equitable-tolling and stay request in the other habeas case, where timeliness was at issue. It denied that request as irrelevant to this action. The court also denied the remaining requests because they concerned matters and parties outside this habeas case.
Appointment of Counsel and Case Status
The court denied Calderon’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions and that appointment generally is left to the district court’s discretion unless an evidentiary hearing is required. At that stage, an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary, and the court found no exceptional circumstances warranting counsel. The court stated that it would reconsider appointment on its own if an evidentiary hearing later became necessary to review the merits of Calderon’s claims.
The court left the habeas case pending. It noted that Covello’s answer was due February 28, 2023, and that Calderon’s response would be due afterward under the court’s earlier order. The order terminated Docket No. 19.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.