Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00297/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00297-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

DEMETRIUS D. HUFF,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0297 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING; DENIAL OF

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This is a habeas case directed to a denial of parole. Petitioner has moved for

appointment of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of counsel to represent a habeas petitioner

whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is

financially unable to obtain representation." 

Petitioner has presented his claims adequately in the petition, and they are not

particularly complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. The

motion for appointment of counsel (document number 9 on the docket) is DENIED. 

The Ninth Circuit has recently decided Hayward v Marshall, in which important

issues relating to federal review of parole decisions were raised. Hayward v Marshall, No.

06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010). The parties will be afforded an

opportunity to address the impact of the Hayward en banc decision on this case. 

Respondent must send petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision within ten

days of the date this order is entered. Within thirty days of the date this order is entered,

Case 4:08-cv-00297-PJH Document 10 Filed 05/13/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

respondent must file and serve a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this

action. If petitioner desires to respond to the supplemental brief, he shall do so by serving

and filing a supplemental brief within thirty days of the date respondent’s brief is served

upon him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\HUFF0297.supp briefing.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-00297-PJH Document 10 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 2