Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00071/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00071-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE RUDY KIRK, 

Petitioner,

v.

MELVIN HUNTER, DIRECTOR,

DMH,

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0071 CW (pr)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME

FOR PETITIONER TO FILE TRAVERSE

(Docket no. 19)

On December 21, 2002, Petitioner was adjudicated a sexually

violent predator under the provisions of California's Sexually

Violent Predators Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6601, et seq.

(SVPA), following a bench trial in the Sonoma County Superior

Court. On the basis of that finding, he was ordered to be

committed to a state mental health facility for a period of two

years.

Petitioner filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus on January 9, 2006. 

In an Order dated June 13, 2006, the Court directed

Respondent to file an answer to the petition and granted

Petitioner leave to file a traverse within thirty days after the

answer was filed. Respondent filed his answer on August 11, 2006. 

Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel in this

action (docket no. 19). He alleges that he has limited access to

"law books . . . which makes it very hard to work on [his] writ."

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

Case 4:06-cv-00071-CW Document 21 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 4
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

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; (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). 

The Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted

in this case. This is not an exceptional case that would warrant

representation on federal habeas review. Therefore, Petitioner's

request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 19) is DENIED.

Now that the Court has ruled on his request for appointment

of counsel, the Court grants Petitioner an extension of time to

file a traverse. Petitioner shall file his traverse no later than

Case 4:06-cv-00071-CW Document 21 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 4
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.06\Kirk0071.denyATTY&EOTtrav.frm 3

sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. Should Petitioner

fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for

decision on the date his traverse is due.

This Order terminates Docket no. 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/25/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00071-CW Document 21 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 4
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\HC.06\Kirk0071.denyATTY&EOTtrav.frm 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE RUDY KIRK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MELVIN HUNTER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-00071 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 25, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Lawrence Rudy Kirk 9962279

166-9

P.O. Box 5003 #7

Coalinga, CA 93210

Sharon R. Wooden

CA Attorney General's Office

455 Golden Gate Ave.

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: October 25, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-00071-CW Document 21 Filed 10/25/07 Page 4 of 4