Samayoa v. Hickman

[9] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 RICHARD SAMAYOA, Case No.: 00cv2118-W 14 Petitioner, ORDER PURSUANT TO REMAND 15 v. DIRECTING BRIEFING ON APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL 16 RONALD DAVIS, Warden, COUNSEL 17 Respondent. [18] 19 This Court previously issued an Order denying Petitioner’s motion to appoint 20 additional counsel. (See ECF No. 112.) Petitioner appealed the decision, and the Ninth 21 Circuit reversed and remanded the case to this Court “to determine whether appointment 22 of additional counsel to represent Richard Samayoa is appropriate under” 18 U.S.C. § 3599 . 23 Samayoa v. Davis, 928 F.3d 1127, 1128 (9th Cir. July 3, 2019). According to the Ninth 24 Circuit, the primary issue under the statute “is whether a petitioner is ‘financially unable’ 25 to obtain adequate representation….” Id. at 1132 . Accordingly, pursuant to the remand, 26 the Court ORDERS as follows: 27 1. On or before Friday, September 6, 2019, Petitioner shall submit a brief 28 addressing whether appointment of additional counsel is appropriate under 1 section 3599, specifically including whether Petitioner is financially unable to 2 obtain adequate representation such that appointment is warranted under the 3 statute. 4 2. Respondent may file a response on or before Friday, September 20, 2019. 5 3. Petitioner may file a reply on or before Friday, September 27, 2019. 6 Unless the Court orders otherwise, the matter will be decided on the pleadings. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: August 21, 2019 \ pe lnLor 10 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan ll Unted States District Judge