Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04714/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04714-3/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 

ANDRE D. SCOTT,

Petitioner,

v.

R.T.C. GROUNDS,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-04714-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, THE 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 

AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Petitioner Andre Scott moved for sanctions for what he sees as respondent’s 

tardiness in meeting the Court’s deadlines. (Docket No. 10). The record shows, however, 

that respondent had asked for and was granted extensions for good cause. The last 

extension allowed respondent to file his response to the petition on or before September 

15, 2014, a filing requirement respondent duly fulfilled. Because respondent filed within 

the deadlines imposed by the Court, there is no basis for issuing sanctions and Scott’s 

motion is DENIED. 

Scott’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED as premature. After the Court 

reviews the merits of the petition, it will decide whether such a hearing is warranted. 

Scott’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a 

habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require” 

Case 3:13-cv-04714-WHO Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 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

and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. But there is no right to 

counsel in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 

1986). 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), and should be granted only when 

exceptional circumstances are present. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal 

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Scott has not 

shown that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

When the record is more fully developed, the Court will consider on its own motion 

whether the appointment of counsel is warranted.

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 9, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04714-WHO Document 16 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 2