Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00978/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00978-0/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

17CV978 MMA (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY LUIS TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17CV978 MMA (BGS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

TO FILE TRAVERSE TO 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO 

PETITION

(2) GRANTING APPLICATION FOR 

A 30-DAY ENLARGEMENT OF 

TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE TO 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER

[ECF Nos. 13, 15]

Petitioner Larry Luis Torres has filed an Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel to File Traverse to Respondent’s Answer to Petition and an Ex Parte Application 

for a 30-Day Enlargement of Time to File Traverse to Respondent’s Answer to the 

Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF Nos. 13, 15.) Petitioner seek appointment of 

counsel for purposes of filing a Traverse on his behalf. (Id. at 2.) He indicates that he 

needs counsel to file the Traverse because he is awaiting transfer and expects to be 

Case 3:17-cv-00978-MMA-BGS Document 16 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17CV978 MMA (BGS)

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

without his property until the requested December 10, 20171 deadline to file his Traverse. 

(Id.) 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 

actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. 

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 

(9th Cir. 1986). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas 

corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular 

case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” 

Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. Although the Court has

“discretion to appoint counsel for indigents when it determines ‘that the interests of 

justice so require.’” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)). 

Here, the only basis put forward for appointment of counsel is Petitioner’s transfer 

and the impact that may have on his ability to timely file his Traverse due to limitations 

on his access to his legal materials. To the extent this could constitute a due process 

violation, it is better remedied through an additional extension of time beyond when 

Petitioner expects to regain access to his legal materials. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED and his

request for an extension of time to file his Traverse is GRANTED. Petitioner must file 

his Traverse on or before January 10, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2017

 

1 Petitioner’s Traverse is currently due on November 10, 2017.

Case 3:17-cv-00978-MMA-BGS Document 16 Filed 11/22/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2