Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-04709/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-04709-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DARNELL THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________/

No. C 11-4709 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING 

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND 

DENYING REQUEST TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

(Docket no. 18)

Petitioner has filed a motion for an extension of time in 

which to file his traverse and a request for the appointment of 

counsel. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the 

motion for an extension of time and denies the request to appoint 

counsel. 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas 

corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 

1986). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, 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, 

Case 4:11-cv-04709-CW Document 19 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 

730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts have made 

appointment of counsel the exception rather 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. Chaney, 

801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 

1965). 

The Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted 

in this case. Petitioner’s claims appear to be the typical claims 

that arise in criminal appeals and habeas petitions and are not 

especially complex. This does not appear to be an exceptional 

case that would warrant representation on federal habeas review. 

There also is no indication that an evidentiary hearing is 

required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). If during its review of the 

merits of the petition the Court determines that further fact 

finding is required, the Court will decide whether to hold an 

evidentiary hearing or whether the facts can be gathered by way of 

mechanisms short of an evidentiary hearing, such as 

supplementation of the record with sworn declarations from the 

Case 4:11-cv-04709-CW Document 19 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

3

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

pertinent witnesses. Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1081, 1041 (9th Cir. 

2000).

Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his 

traverse is granted. Petitioner’s traverse must be filed within 

sixty days from the date of this order.

This Order terminates Docket No. 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 ____________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-04709-CW Document 19 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3