Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06110/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06110-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUKE J. CARRERO,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID J. HOLBROOK,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-06110-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; 

DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Petitioner, an inmate at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the Court is petitioner’s 

request for an extension of time to file his traverse and for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 11. 

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS petitioner an extension of time to file his traverse 

and DENIES his request for appointment of counsel.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner has shown good cause for the grant of an extension of time to file his traverse. 

Petitioner shall file his traverse by June 5, 2020. 

Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is required to protect his interests and rights

because he does not have the formal training necessary to properly deal with this petition. The 

Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. 

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district 

court to appoint 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. The 

decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather 

Case 4:19-cv-06110-HSG Document 12 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex 

procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally 

or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in 

framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which the petitioner is in no position to investigate 

crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal 

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is 

mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 

necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Petitioner’s request 

for appointment of counsel is denied because the record does not indicate that justice requires the 

appointment of counsel. The federal habeas petition, which petitioner prepared, has adequately 

presented the legal claims, and demonstrated a good understanding of the issues. Petitioner’s 

request for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED without prejudice to the Court sua sponte

appointing counsel if circumstances so require. See, e.g., LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 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 

coherently his contentions); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (no abuse of 

discretion in denying request for appointment of counsel where petitioner was over 60 years of age 

and had no background in law, but he thoroughly presented issues in petition and accompanying 

memorandum).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS petitioner an extension of time to file his 

traverse and DENIES his request for appointment of counsel. Petitioner shall file his traverse by 

June 5, 2020. 

This order terminates ECF No. 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/29/2020

Case 4:19-cv-06110-HSG Document 12 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 2