Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05310/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05310-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heidi M. Lackner
Respondent
Leo Dalton Price
Petitioner

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

LEO DALTON PRICE,

Petitioner,

v.

HEIDI M. LACKNER, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-05310-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL; AND SUA SPONTE 

GRANTING HIM EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his state conviction. On January 29, 2015, the Court 

directed Respondent to file an answer to the petition and granted Petitioner leave to file a traverse. 

On March 30, 2015, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court may, however, 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); 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 

Case 4:14-cv-05310-YGR Document 16 Filed 05/14/15 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

F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 996 (1966). 

Petitioner claims that appointment of counsel is appropriate because he is uneducated and

suffers from some unnamed mentally disability/impairment. Dkt. 15 at 4-5. However, the Court 

finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Petitioner’s claim was briefed 

by counsel on direct appeal, and it is not especially complex. This is not an exceptional case that 

would warrant representation on federal habeas review. Therefore, the motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED. Dkt. 15.

Petitioner’s traverse is due on May 29, 2015. The Court sua sponte GRANTS Petitioner 

an extension of time to file a traverse. The time in which Petitioner is to file his traverse will be 

extended up to and including July 29, 2015. Should Petitioner fail to file a traverse, the petition 

will be deemed submitted on that date.

This Order terminates Docket No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 14, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-05310-YGR Document 16 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2