Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-02831/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-02831-0/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)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOHN RODRIGUES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RON BARNES, Acting Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 12-02831 YGR (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, AND

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 

Petitioner also requests appointment of counsel. (Pet. at 8.) 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; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 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, legal or mixed legal and

factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners;

Case 4:12-cv-02831-YGR Document 2 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 3
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

(4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases

in which 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). 

At this time, the Court is unable to determine whether the appointment of counsel is

mandated for Petitioner. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel,

and Petitioner's request is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte

reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary hearing necessary following consideration of

the merits of Petitioner's claims. 

In addition to considering Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, the Court has also

reviewed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It does not appear from the face of the petition that

it is without merit. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby issues the following orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his current address. 

2. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within one-hundred

and nineteen (119) days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule

5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be issued. Respondent shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the relevant state

records that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. 

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with

the Court and serving it on Respondent within sixty-three (63) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision sixtythree (63) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer. 

4. Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty-three

Case 4:12-cv-02831-YGR Document 2 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\HC.12\Rodrigues2831.OSC&denyATTY.frm 3

(63) days of the issuance of this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

Answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on

Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion within sixty-three (63) days

of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court

and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose

address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address

specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint

when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not

deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written

communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b); see also

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

Petitioner must also serve on Respondent's counsel all communications with the Court by

mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent's counsel. 

 6. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the

deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2012 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-02831-YGR Document 2 Filed 07/09/12 Page 3 of 3