Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05376/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Espinoza
Petitioner
W. L. Montgomery
Respondent

Document Text:

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

CARLOS ESPINOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

W. L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-05376-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS; DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT 

BE GRANTED; AND DENYING 

PETITIONER'S 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. Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He has also filed a 

motion for appointment of counsel. 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

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). 

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 

Case 4:14-cv-05376-YGR Document 4 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 

1965). Under the foregoing standard, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted. 

Thus, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Dkt. 3.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 2.

2. 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within onehundred and twenty (120) 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. 

4. 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 (60) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision sixty 

(60) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent’s Answer. 

5. Respondent may file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

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 (60) days of 

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

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

6. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 

Case 4:14-cv-05376-YGR Document 4 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Court and Respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders 

in a timely fashion. 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. 

7. 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 ten (10) days prior to the deadline 

sought to be extended.

8. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Dkt. 3.

9. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

January 2, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-05376-YGR Document 4 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 3