(HC)Ponce v. State of California ( 2023 )

2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 TONY E. PONCE, 1:21-cv-01727-ADA-HBK (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 12 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 13 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 Respondent. (Doc. No. 24) 15 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to file a reply to 20 Respondent’s Answer, and Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. No. 24). 21 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a second amended petition for writ of 22 habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 12). Petitioner requests a 90-day 23 extension of time, or until May 8, 2023, to file his response to Respondent’s Answer because he 24 has limited intellectual ability and needs help preparing his legal documents, and he was suddenly 25 transferred to a different prison and needs time to retrieve his case file and find a “new legal 26 helper.” (Doc. No. 24 at 1-2). Petitioner also requests the Court to appoint counsel to represent 27 him in this matter because of recent changes in California law. (Id. at 2). 28 The Court finds good cause to grant Petitioner’s an extension of time. However, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); 3 Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who ° seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. 6 at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts require the court to 8 appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and ? appointment of counsel is necessary for effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined 10 that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). i Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 12 of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner was able to file his initial 8 habeas petition and seek leave to amend his petition several times without the aid of counsel. M4 Further, the Court finds the circumstances of this case at this time do not indicate that appointed 1S counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED. 18 Petitioner may file a reply to Respondent’s Answer no later than May 8, 2023. 19 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED. 20 21 Dated: _ February 8, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28