Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03902/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03902-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

CLARK E. DUCART, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-03902-YGR (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE TRAVERSE; AND DENYING 

HIS REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court 

directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition and granted Petitioner leave to file a traverse. 

Respondent has filed an answer. Petitioner now moves for an extension of time to file a traverse. 

Good cause appearing, the request is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file a traverse no later than

March 7, 2015. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this action. 

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 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 the 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 

Case 4:14-cv-03902-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/15 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

necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 

F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Petitioner to court appointed 

counsel do not exist at this time, as Petitioner has been able to articulate his claims and legal 

arguments adequately in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Accordingly, the 

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel, and Petitioner’s request 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. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

February 4, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-03902-HSG Document 13 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 2