Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02037/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02037-4/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BOYDD D.J. IRVING, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DAVE DAVEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2037 AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently before the court are petitioner’s motions for 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) and for an extension of time to file an amended petition 

(ECF No. 22). 

This is petitioner’s second request for the appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 15. 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See 

Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes 

the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See 

Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. As he was previously advised, petitioner has not yet 

stated any grounds for relief and is being given an opportunity to amend the petition to correct 

this omission. In the absence of cognizable claims, the court cannot determine whether 

appointment of counsel might be appropriate. Petitioner asserts that he requires counsel because 

Case 2:15-cv-02037-AC Document 24 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

he suffers from borderline personality disorder. ECF No. 23 at 1. However, he provides no 

records verifying that he has been diagnosed with and is being treated for this condition. Nor 

does he offer any evidence of how this condition affects his ability to proceed without the 

assistance of counsel. The fact that petitioner may be diagnosed with or receiving treatment for a 

mental health condition, without more, does not warrant appointment of counsel. The motion will 

therefore be denied without prejudice. Any future motion for appointment of counsel based on 

petitioner’s mental health must include evidence of petitioner’s diagnosis and how it prevents him 

from representing himself. Petitioner is cautioned, however, that a showing of mental impairment 

will not entitle him to appointed counsel in the absence of viable claims for relief. 

Petitioner has filed a third request for an unspecified extension of his time to file an 

amended petition. ECF No. 22. Petitioner states that he has been denied library access on three 

separate occasions since the last extension he was granted. Id. The court will grant petitioner an 

additional thirty days to file an amended petition. Petitioner is once again reminded that any 

further requests for extension should identify how much time petitioner is seeking and why the 

requested amount of time is necessary. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without 

prejudice. 

2. Petitioner’s third request for an extension of time to file an amended petition (ECF No. 

22) is granted, and petitioner shall have thirty days from service of this order to file an amended 

petition. 

DATED: September 21, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02037-AC Document 24 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2