Phonsongkham v. Guzman

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied a state prisoner’s motion to reconsider the denial of appointed counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceeding. The court held that the petitioner had not identified a basis for Rule 60(b) relief or shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, but extended the deadline for filing an opposition or traverse and ordered respondents to re-serve case documents.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because Petitioner did not identify a traditional Rule 60(b) ground or any other reason justifying relief, and the grounds he asserted could have been raised in his original motion for appointment of counsel.
2. Petitioner did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel because alleged indigency and limited English-language ability, without more, were insufficient, and his coherent filings demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner established a basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for reconsideration of the order denying appointment of counsel.
2. Whether Petitioner's alleged indigency and limited English-language ability constituted exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
3. Whether Petitioner's assertion that he had not received Respondents' filings warranted re-service and an extension of the deadline to file an opposition or traverse.

Disposition

other