(HC) Loyd v. Spearmen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL RAY LOYD, Case No. 18-cv-07228-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; 9 v. DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 10 SPEARMEN, Re: Dkt. No. 30 11 Respondent. 12 13 Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file his 14 traverse and his request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 30. 15 Good cause being shown, Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file his traverse is 16 GRANTED. Dkt. No. 30. Petitioner shall file his traverse by February 2, 2021. 17 Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Petitioner argues that the 18 Court should appoint counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, because the interests of 19 justice require physical access to a law library and currently he can only access the law library via 20 a paging system, and because professional assistance is required to protect his interests. Dkt. No. 21 30 at 5, 7. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 22 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 23 authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court 24 determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court finds 25 that the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time because the 26 issues are not complex, Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and Petitioner has access to 27 legal resources, although not in the form he finds most effective. 1 This order terminates Dkt. No. 30. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: 11/2/2020 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. / 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 13 14 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28