Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03717-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd D. Burpee
Petitioner
A. Hedgpeth
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD D. BURPEE,

Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH, Warden, 

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-3717 EMC (pr)

ORDER

Respondent’s request for an extension of time to respond to the petition for writ of habeas

corpus is GRANTED. (Docket # 13.) The Court now sets the following new briefing schedule on

the petition: On or before February 28, 2013, Respondent must file and serve on Petitioner his

response. On or before March 29, 2013, Petitioner must file and serve on Respondent’s counsel his

traverse.

Petitioner has requested that counsel be appointed 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 at this

time. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 11.)

Petitioner’s second in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 5.)

Case 3:12-cv-03717-EMC Document 15 Filed 01/07/13 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

2

Petitioner’s request for default judgment is DENIED. (Docket # 14.) Respondent was not

and is not in default. Further, the availability of habeas relief by default is at least doubtful. See

Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990) (“failure to respond to claims raised in a

petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03717-EMC Document 15 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2