Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03018/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heidi M. Lackner
Respondent
Jorge Gonzalez Orduno
Petitioner
People of the State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

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

No. C 15-3018 RS (PR)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 12/8/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JORGE GONZALEZ ORDUNO,

Petitioner,

v.

HEIDI M. LACKNER, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-3018 RS (PR)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

Petitioner’s motion to extend time to file a traverse (Docket No. 20) is GRANTED. 

The traverse shall be filed on or before February 15, 2016. 

He also moves for the appointment of counsel because he hasn’t any English, lacks

money to hire an attorney, and would be better served if counsel were appointed. There is no

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

Cir. 1986). A district court is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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), and should be granted only when exceptional

Case 3:15-cv-03018-RS Document 21 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 2
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

No. C 15-3018 RS (PR)

2 ORDER EXTENDING TIME

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

Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383–86 (2d ed. 1994). 

Petitioner has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist. His lack of legal

knowledge and money are facts nearly all prisoners face. Also, his circumstances have not

hindered his prosecution of this habeas action thus far. He has been able to file articulate,

reasoned documents (including the present motion) with the Court. Counsel therefore is not

required, nor can the Court see any other reasons warranting the appointment of counsel. 

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Heidi M. Lackner, the warden of the

prison in which petitioner is housed, is the sole respondent in this action. Petitioner

erroneously named as respondent the People of the State of California. Lackner, not the

People of the State of California, is the proper respondent in this action, as she is the

custodian having day-to-day control over petitioner, the only person who can produce the

“body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992)

(quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). The Clerk shall terminate

Docket No. 20. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03018-RS Document 21 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2