Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04444/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04444-0/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

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 Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Granting Extension of Time to File Traverse 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Curtis444atty 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONDARLAID CURTIS

Petitioner,

 vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4444 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE

(Docket No. 7)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 17, 2006, the Court granted Petitioner’s motions to

proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed one of Petitioner’s claims, and ordered Respondent

to show cause why the instant petition should not be granted as to the remaining claims. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Respondent filed an

answer addressing the merits on June 15, 2006. Petitioner has not filed a traverse. The

Court will DENY Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 7) without

prejudice and grant Petitioner an extension of time to file a traverse. 

\\\

\\\

**Original filed 8/2/06**

Case 5:05-cv-04444-JF Document 16 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Granting Extension of Time to File Traverse 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Curtis444atty 2

DISCUSSION

Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he is indigent and unable to obtain any

evidence or material in support of his claims. Petitioner asks the Court to appoint counsel

to seek information, evidence and material that could provide information regarding his

claims. Petitioner claims that because he takes medication daily he cannot properly

prepare a response See Pet’s Mot. at 2-3. 

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). However, 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 issues before the Court remain relatively straightforward and no

evidentiary hearing appears necessary. Petitioner previously filed state habeas petitions

in three state courts and his pleadings before this Court are concise and clear. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 7) is DENIED

without prejudice. However, the Court will grant Petitioner an extension of time to file a

traverse, if he chooses to do so. Petitioner shall file his traverse on or before September

15, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/2/06 /S/electronic signature authorized

Case 5:05-cv-04444-JF Document 16 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Granting Extension of Time to File Traverse 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Curtis444atty 3

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Tondarlaid Curtis

70 North Jackson Avenue Apt. # 9

San Jose, CA 95116

Ross C. Moody

California State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:05-cv-04444-JF Document 16 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 3