Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00018/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00018-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

DIANTY M. POWELL,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-00018-EMC 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

COUNSEL AND EXTENDING 

DEADLINES

Docket Nos. 9, 10, 15

The petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action alleges the following claims: (1) the 

trial court’s failure to provide “instructions relating intoxication to heat of passion” violated 

Petitioner’s right to a fair trial, Docket No. 1 at 21; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance 

of counsel by not requesting such instructions, id.; (3) the trial court’s instruction that the jury 

could not consider the fact that witnesses Carter and Rich were in state custody for purposes of 

evaluating their credibility violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights to due process, to present a 

defense, and to have the jury determine every material issue presented, see id. at 40, 44. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A 

district court may 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 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). 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of justice 

do not require appointment of counsel in this action. The first and third claims in the petition were 

briefed on direct appeal by counsel representing Petitioner. The second claim was not presented 

Case 3:19-cv-00018-EMC Document 16 Filed 06/13/19 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

on appeal, but is simply the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel overlay to the first claim that 

was briefed on direct appeal by counsel representing Petitioner. The issues presented by the 

petition also are not particularly complicated. For these reasons, Petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket Nos. 9, 10.

Respondent’s request for an extension of the deadline to file an answer to the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. Docket No. 15. The Court now sets the following new 

deadlines: Respondent must file and serve his answer to the petition no later than July 12, 2019. 

Petitioner must file and serve his traverse no later than August 9, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00018-EMC Document 16 Filed 06/13/19 Page 2 of 2