Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02218/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02218-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE LAMONT VARNER,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-2218 EMC (pr)

ORDER 

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he asserted eight claims for

relief. The Court dismissed one claim because it was for a state law error, and ordered Respondent

to respond to the other claims. Respondent filed an answer in February 2015. At about the same

time, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his petition. The Court denied the motion to amend without

prejudice because Petitioner had not submitted a proposed amended petition, had not explained why

he wanted to amend his petition, and had not identified what (if any) claims he wanted to add. The

order stated that the Court would wait until April 10, 2015 for Petitioner to file a motion to amend or

a traverse. Se Docket # 26 at 2. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for an open-ended extension of time to file an amended petition.

Docket # 27. His motion indicates that Petitioner does not know what new claims he wants to

present and that he wants to obtain his files from his lawyers to search for potential new claims

regarding his 2009 conviction. See, e.g., Docket # 27 at 3 (“Trial counsel’s files are often necessary

to establish whether their representation fell below the applicable standard of reasonableness”); id.

(“It is imperative petitioner review these files if he’s to file an adequate first amended petition, that

includes all [meritorious] claims, and is in compliance with the court’s March 3, 2015 order”). 

Case 3:14-cv-02218-EMC Document 29 Filed 05/19/15 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

Petitioner states that he has requested his files from his lawyer, but it appears that these were rather

recent requests – possibly within the last few months – and he has not yet received the files. See

Docket # 28. The petition on file includes claims for ineffective assistance of trial and appellate

counsel, which suggests Petitioner is searching for additional ineffective assistance of counsel

claims. The small amount of information Petitioner has provided does not explain why he waited

until almost a year after filing his federal petition (and more than two years after his conviction

became final upon conclusion of direct review) to start looking for additional claims to present in a

federal habeas action. The small amount of information Petitioner has provided also suggests that

any claims he might discover will have timeliness problems and state court remedies will not have

been exhausted for them. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (one-year statute of limitations for habeas

actions); id. § 2254(b(1) (relief cannot be granted on an unexhausted claim). Upon due

consideration, Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file an amended petition is DENIED. 

Docket # 27.

Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district

court may 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. 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 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). Appointment is mandatory only

when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent

due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this

action. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket # 28.

Petitioner must file his traverse, if any, no later than June 19, 2015. No extensions of this

deadline should be expected because, by the time it arrives, Petitioner will have had three months to

prepare his traverse. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02218-EMC Document 29 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2