Powers v. Covello ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY POWERS, Case No. 20-cv-04244-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL; DENYING REQUEST FOR 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME 10 PATRICK COVELLO, Re: Dkt. No. 12 11 Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, has filed a pro se 14 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from 15 Napa County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Petitioner has filed a pleading with the Court 16 requesting that the Court appoint him an advisor to assist him with this action, and requesting an 17 extension of time. Dkt. No. 12. Petitioner reports that he is housed in an area of Mule Creek State 18 Prison that has been shut down as part of a quarantine process and that he has no access to the law 19 library. Id. Petitioner also reports that he has been diligently seeking assistance of counsel and 20 habeas relief. Id. 21 The Court construes Petitioner’s request for an advisor as a request for appointment of 22 counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 23 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 24 authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court 25 determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 26 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the 27 1 legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or 2 || physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in 3 || framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which the petitioner is in no position to investigate 4 || crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal 5 || Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is 6 mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 4 necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. The Court finds that g the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time because the issues 9 are not complex, Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and Petitioner will presumably 10 have access to legal resources after the quarantine is lifted. The Court therefore exercises its discretion and DENIES Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to sua sponte appointing counsel if circumstances so require. See, e.g., LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, E 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in denying appointment of counsel where pleadings = illustrated that petitioner had good understanding of issues and ability to present forcefully and M4 coherently his contentions); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (no abuse of 1S discretion in denying request for appointment of counsel where petitioner was over 60 and had no 16 background in law, but thoroughly presented issues in petition and accompanying memorandum). 7 The Court construes Petitioner’s request to “extend to a later date,” Dkt. No. 12 at 1, asa 18 request to continue pending Court deadlines. The Court DENIES this request as premature. 19 Respondent’s answer to the order to show cause is due on November 27, 2020. If, after receiving 20 the answer, Petitioner finds that he requires an extension of time to file his traverse, he may file a 71 request with the Court at that time. In requesting an extension of time from the Court, Petitioner 22 should specify how much additional time he requires to prepare the relevant pleading. 23 This order terminates Dkt. No. 12. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 Dated: 11/6/2020 26 5 bbl 27 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 38 United States District Judge