Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00999/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00999-0/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)

---

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

JEFFREY THOMAS CUMMINS,

Petitioner,

 v.

A. KANE, WARDEN, et al.,

Respondents.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-0999 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

EXTENDING TIME TO FILE

OPPOSITION

(Docket No. 4)

Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the denial of parole. After respondent filed

a motion to dismiss, petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 

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

v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (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. Moreover, the

issues raised in the petition, as well as by respondent’s motion, are currently under

consideration in a case pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As such issues

are likely to be resolved in the near future by the Ninth Circuit, the interests of justice do

not require appointment of counsel in the instant case at this time. Should the

circumstances change materially at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will reconsider

Case 3:05-cv-00999-MMC Document 8 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

this decision sua sponte. 

Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 

Petitioner is granted an extension of time, to and including October 31, 2005, in

which to file an opposition to respondent’s motion. Respondent shall file a reply on or

before November 15, 2005.

This order terminates Docket No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00999-MMC Document 8 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2