Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00976/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00976-1/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

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

JORGE RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDRIC FAULK,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-00976-VC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL; GRANTING PETITIONER 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE 

On January 28, 2015, Jorge Rodriguez filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this 

habeas 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. 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 or legal 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 necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 

F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

Case 3:14-cv-00976-VC Document 26 Filed 02/12/15 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

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Rodriguez to court appointed 

counsel do not exist at this time. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require appointment of 

counsel, and Rodriguez’s motion is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua 

sponte reconsideration should the Court find appointment of counsel is necessary following 

consideration of the merits of Rodriguez’s claims.

Rodriguez’s traverse was due on August 12, 2014, but he has not filed it. In the interests 

of justice, Rodriguez shall have twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order to file his 

traverse. If he does not do so within this time period, the merits of his petition will be considered 

without a traverse.

This Order terminates Docket No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

February 12, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-00976-VC Document 26 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 2