(HC) Avitt v. Jones

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01783
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES EMMETT AVITT, No. 2:24-cv-1783 WBS AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 GENA JONES, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requests this action be stayed on the grounds that he is suffering from dementia 18 or Alzheimer’s disease. ECF No. 22. The requested duration for the stay appears to be indefinite. 19 Id. at 2. 20 Petitioner’s request will be denied without prejudice because the mere claim that 21 petitioner suffers from these conditions is not enough to establish circumstances warranting an 22 indefinite stay. See Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2000) (“If a stay is especially 23 long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it.”). If petitioner chooses to 24 file another motion for stay, he should specify how his conditions prevent him from proceeding at 25 this point in time, specify for how long such condition may be expected to prevent petitioner from 26 proceeding, and provide medical documentation supporting his claimed impairments. 27 Petitioner may also, or alternatively, seek the appointment of counsel. Although there 28 currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings, see Nevius v. 1 | Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of 2 || counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. 3 || Governing § 2254 Cases. If petitioner chooses to file a motion for appointment of counsel, he 4 || should specify how his conditions prevent him from proceeding without assistance and provide 5 || medical documentation supporting his claimed impairments. 6 Lastly, to the extent the motion seeks to permit Richard Louis Arnold Phillips, a non- 7 || attorney, to represent plaintiff, such request is denied. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 8 | F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, he has 9 || no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself”) (internal quotations and citation 10 || omitted); see also Jorss v. Schwarzenegger, 168 F. App’x 825, 826 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding the 11 | district court properly dismissed the complaint because the pro se prisoner plaintiff could not 12 || represent others). Because Mr. Phillips is neither the petitioner nor an attorney who can represent 13 || petitioner, Mr. Phillips shall refrain from filing documents in this action. If plaintiff needs 14 | assistance in gathering documentation and submitting them to the court, Mr. Phillips or another 15 || mmate may assist in that manner. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay (ECF No. 22) is denied 17 || without prejudice. 18 | DATED: April 10, 2025 ~ 19 _Athuer—Clore ALLISON CLAIRE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28