Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02986/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02986-0/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

3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN GARY THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS

ORDER:

(1) EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 

PETITIONER TO FILE TRAVERSE;

(2) DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO PROVIDE A SECOND COPY OF 

COURT’S JANUARY 23, 2017 

ORDER; AND

(3) DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

(Dkt. No. 11)

I. Petitioner’s Deadline to File a Traverse

On April 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a letter stating he is aware that Respondent filed 

an Answer to the Petition. Petitioner states, however, that he has not received an “Order 

to Show Cause,” and thus has not received any direction from the Court regarding when 

his reply to Respondent’s Answer is due.

The Court has not issued any Order to Show Cause. The Court has, however, 

previously issued an Order that set forth deadlines, including Petitioner’s deadline to 

reply to Respondent’s Answer. In particular, on January 23, 2017, the Court issued an 

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS

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 setting Respondent’s deadline to respond or move to dismiss the Petition by March 

27, 2017. (Dkt. No. 6.) That Order also set Petitioner’s deadline to file his response, if 

any, by April 27, 2017. (Id.) The docket reflects that Petitioner was served with the 

Court’s Order via U.S. Mail Service. However, because Petitioner apparently did not 

receive a copy of the Order, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to provide another 

copy, and the Court will also provide a brief extension on Petitioner’s deadline to file his 

Traverse to the Answer. 

II. Petitioner’s Request for Counsel

In a single sentence in his letter, Petitioner also asks the Court to appoint counsel 

in this matter “given the complexity of the issue.” (Dkt. No. 6.) 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 

actions by state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). But 

financially eligible habeas petitioners may obtain counsel whenever the court “determines 

that the interests of justice so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. 

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990). The interests of justice require 

appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition. 

Id. at 1177. When no evidentiary hearing is necessary, appointment of counsel is 

discretionary. Id. In the Ninth Circuit, indigent prisoners are not entitled to appointed 

counsel unless counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Chaney, 801 F.2d 

at 1196; Terrovona, 912 F.3d at 1181.

 At this point the issues do not appear so complex such that Petitioner cannot 

litigate them. Also, it is not evident at this time that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. 

Under these circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state 

prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide another copy of the Court’s 

January 23, 2017 Order (Dkt. No. 6) along with this Order;

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS

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. If Petitioner elects to file a Traverse to matters raised in the Answer, his 

Traverse deadline is extended from April 27, 2017 to May 11, 2017; and

3. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3