Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03048/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03048-1/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CASTLE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3048 JSW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING PENDING

MOTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO

THE CLERK 

(Docket nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California, filed

a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 12, 2006, this

Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the writ should not issue (docket no. 4). In the

order, Petitioner was notified of the Court’s intention to substitute Warden Yates as the

Respondent in this case. However, Petitioner’s subsequent motion to “construe” Jeanne

Woodford, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections as the proper Respondent is

GRANTED (docket no. 6). The Clerk shall substitute Defendant Woodford as the Respondent

in this matter. 

On February 9, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to

allege the violation of a federal constitutional right (docket no. 8). Petitioner has filed two

motions seeking an extension of time to respond (docket nos. 7, 11). Those motions are now

GRANTED. Petitioner shall respond to the motion to dismiss within thirty days of the date of

this order. Petitioner’s motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED (docket no.

9). 

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 14 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 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 2

Petitioner also filed a motion for appointment of counsel based on his indigency (docket

no. 10). However, 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). 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.” The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the

district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S.

1023 (1987); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. At this time, it is unclear whether the petition alleges a

proper basis for jurisdiction in this Court. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel (docket no. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03048-JSW Document 14 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2