Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05579/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05579-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMEAKA L. ELLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

BRIAN KOEHN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-05579-JST (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE A TRAVERSE

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus 

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his state court 

conviction. Respondent was ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted based 

upon the claims set forth therein. Respondent has filed an answer. Now before the Court are 

petitioner’s: (1) motion for appointment of counsel; and (2) motion for extension of time to file his 

traverse.

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert v. 

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to statute, however, a district court is 

authorized 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.” 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the 

petition, and the interests of justice do not otherwise require the appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should the 

circumstances of the case materially change, the Court may reconsider petitioner’s request sua 

sponte. 

Case 3:14-cv-05579-JST Document 18 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a traverse is 

GRANTED. Petitioner may file a traverse by no later than April 21, 2016.

This order terminates Docket No. 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05579-JST Document 18 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 2