Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04272/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04272-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND-CARLOS QUINONEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

WARDEN HARRINGTON,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-04272 SBA (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; ORDER

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS

Before the Court are Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel and a letter the Court

construes as a request for an extension of time to file his opposition to Respondent's motion to

dismiss (docket nos. 8 and 9).

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

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. 

See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 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

Case 4:09-cv-04272-SBA Document 10 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.09\Quinonez4272.Atty-Eot.frm 2

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

Cir. 1965). 

At this time, the Court is unable to determine whether the appointment of counsel is

mandated for Petitioner. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel,

and Petitioner's request (docket no. 8) is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's

sua sponte reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary hearing necessary following

consideration of the merits of Petitioner's claims. 

As mentioned above, Petitioner has also filed a letter (docket no. 9), which the Court

construes as a request for an extension of time in which to file his opposition to Respondent's motion

to dismiss. The Court GRANTS Petitioner's request. The time in which Petitioner may file his

opposition to will be extended up to and including thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 

Respondent shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after the date Petitioner's

opposition is filed.

This Order terminates Docket nos. 8 and 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/25/10 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:09-cv-04272-SBA Document 10 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.09\Quinonez4272.Atty-Eot.frm 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND-CARLOS QUINONEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HARRINGTON et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-04272 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 25, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Raymond-Carlos Quinonez E-15587

Kern Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 5103

Delano, CA 93216-5103

Dated: August 25, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04272-SBA Document 10 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 3