Harrison v. Smith

Background

David Scott Harrison, an incarcerated person at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges a September 30, 2021 disciplinary hearing at the prison. Harrison paid the filing fee and was proceeding without a lawyer.

Harrison requested a stay of the case, discovery, an evidentiary hearing, appointment of counsel, and copies of all orders issued in the action.

Rulings on Pending Requests

The court denied the request for a stay because Harrison had not shown a sufficient reason for the court to interfere with the prison’s day-to-day operations. The court also explained that Harrison did not need to file a case-management statement because the case was new. It therefore denied his request for an extension to file that statement as unnecessary and denied his request for future extensions as premature.

The court denied the request for appointment of counsel. It explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas cases and that appointment under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) is discretionary, generally reserved for cases involving circumstances such as complex legal or factual questions, impaired or uneducated petitioners, the likely need for experts, or difficulty investigating crucial facts. The court concluded that appointment was not warranted under that standard.

The court directed the respondent to file a response to Harrison’s requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing within 28 days after the order issued. Harrison may reply within 14 days after that response is filed. The court denied Harrison’s request for copies of all orders because no written orders had yet been issued and directed the Clerk to send him a copy of the docket sheet.

Order to Show Cause and Case Schedule

The court found that the petition did not appear meritless on its face and issued an order to show cause. The respondent must file an answer complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within 60 days after the order issued, explaining why the requested writ should not be issued and providing relevant portions of the previously transcribed state-court record.

Instead of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 60-day period. If that occurs, Harrison may file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 60 days after receiving the motion, and the respondent may reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition. If Harrison responds to an answer, he must file a traverse within 60 days after receiving it; otherwise, the petition will be treated as submitted for decision.

The order also states that Harrison must prosecute the case, keep the court and respondent informed of any address change, timely comply with court orders, and send the respondent’s counsel copies of his court communications. Ron Broomfield, identified as the current warden, was substituted as the respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Disposition and Classification

This order denied the requests for a stay, an unnecessary case-management-statement extension, future extensions requested prematurely, appointment of counsel, and copies of previously issued orders. It set deadlines for responses concerning discovery and an evidentiary hearing and required the respondent to answer or file a procedural motion to dismiss. Because the court did not decide whether Harrison is entitled to habeas relief, this is a procedural order rather than a decision on the petition’s merits.