Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00274/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00274-1/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

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Johnson274extmisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0274 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE TRAVERSE;

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(Docket Nos. 34, 35)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee, and granted Petitioner’s motion to

file an amended petition. Petitioner filed an amended petition in September 2003. 

Thereafter, the Court dismissed the instant habeas action without prejudice for

Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee. On January 4, 2005, the Court granted Petitioner

an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. On January 18, 2005, Petitioner

filed his motion for reconsideration. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration, vacated the judgment and reopened the instant action on September 16,

2005. The Court ordered Respondent to show cause as to why the amended petition

**E-filed 5/21/07**

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 37 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Johnson274extmisc 2

should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer addressing the merits of the petition.

Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for an extension of time

to file a traverse. On January 10, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel and granted Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his

traverse. The Court directed Petitioner to file his traverse within thirty days. Petitioner

filed his traverse on February 20, 2007. On March 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for

extension of time to file his traverse. The Court concludes that Petitioner has shown good

cause for such extension. Petitioner’s motion (docket no. 34) is GRANTED. The

traverse, filed on February 20, 2007, is deemed timely.

Petitioner also filed a letter with the Court explaining his disabilities which

include: low cognitive functioning, attention disorder and mild schizophrenia. In his

letter, Petitioner renews his request for appointment of counsel to proceed with this case. 

 As set forth in the Court’s previous order denying 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). 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; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). 

 The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of

counsel at this time. The matter is now fully submitted and awaiting review by the Court. 

The issues presented are relatively straightforward and no evidentiary hearing appears

necessary. 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 37 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Johnson274extmisc 3

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment counsel (docket no. 35) is DENIED

without prejudice. The Court will review the merits of the petition in a separate written

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

5/18/07

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 37 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Traverse; Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel Without Prejudice

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.03\Johnson274extmisc 4

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Frederick L. Johnson

J-83092

CSP - Sacramento

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671-0066

Jill M. Thayer

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:03-cv-00274-JF Document 37 Filed 05/21/07 Page 4 of 4