Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03055/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03055-1/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 

16cv3055-LAB-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TROY D. WARD,

Petitioner, 

v.

NEIL McDOWELL, Warden,

Respondent. 

Case No.: 16cv3055-LAB-MDD

ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, 

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO OBJECT, and SECOND 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

[ECF No. 24]

On July 5, 2017, Petitioner constructively filed this motion asking 1) 

appointment of counsel, and 2) for an additional 90 day extension of time to 

file objections to the pending Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 28). 

A. Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED. 

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

corpus actions by state prisoners. See McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 

495(1991); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that 

there currently exists no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in 

habeas proceedings); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 3:16-cv-03055-LAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv3055-LAB-MDD 

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

Courts may appoint counsel for financially-eligible habeas petitioners seeking 

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only where “the interests of justice so 

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. 

The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court 

conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 

F.2d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1990); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 

(9th Cir. 1986); Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rule 

8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when 

no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Id. When “the district court chooses to 

deny a motion for appointment of counsel, the court must review the record 

and render an independent legal conclusion.” Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. 

Moreover, when “the court declines to appoint counsel, it will have to inform 

itself of the relevant law. Therefore, the additional assistance provided by 

attorneys” is not required by the Constitution unless an evidentiary hearing 

is required. Id. 

An evidentiary hearing has not been ordered in this case, and therefore 

the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Petitioner has 

not shown that this Court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel. 

This is not a death penalty case. Petitioner does not show that this case is 

particularly complex. Petitioner included standardized testing results in his 

third request, however he does not explain how these results render him 

significantly less capable of pursuing his action than similarly situated 

petitioners. 

Petitioner has not shown that appointment of counsel is required by the 

interests of justice, that appointment of counsel is necessary to prevent due 

process violations in this action, or that this Court should exercise its 

discretion for alternative reasons. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for 

Case 3:16-cv-03055-LAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv3055-LAB-MDD 

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

appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

B. Second Motion for Extension 

Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation were 

originally due June 14, 2017. (ECF No. 19 at 39 (setting deadline to file 

objections)). Petitioner’s first motion for an extension sought a 90 day 

extension, but provided no grounds for seeking an extension. (ECF No. 21). 

In the interests of justice, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion in part, 

granted a month-long extension, and ordered Petitioner to file his objections 

on or before July 12, 2017. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner’s second motion for an 

extension sought an additional 60 days. (ECF No. 24). Petitioner was given 

an additional two weeks in order to file his objections. (ECF No. 25). 

In this third motion for an extension, Petitioner request an additional 

90 days. (ECF No. 28). In support, Petitioner does not provide any grounds 

except to note that he continues to wait for a reply back from his parole office. 

The Court finds that Petitioner has not shown good cause for the 

requested extension and DENIES this third motion for an extension. 

Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, this Court will provide Petitioner one 

last opportunity to file his objections. Petitioner must file objections on or 

before September 11, 2017. Respondent must file any response to 

Petitioner’s objections on or before September 25, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 21, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-03055-LAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3