Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03390/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03390-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orlando Lopez
Petitioner
William Muniz
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent. /

No. C 17-03390 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Petitioner Orlando Lopez has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The Sixth

Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith,

791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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.” 

Appointment of counsel is appropriate in this case. Petitioner is indigent and was represented

by appointed counsel in his state criminal court proceedings. The federal petition and

supporting documents were prepared by attorneys Dylan Schaffer and Matthew Dirkes on a pro

bono basis, and the claims and issues in the federal petition are complex and potentially

meritorious. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is GRANTED. 

Pursuant to Section 3006A(a)(2)(B), Dylan Schaffer of the law firm Kerley Schaffer LLP, 1939

Harrison Street, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612, and Matthew Dirkes of the law firm Boersch

Shapiro, LLP, 1611 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, are hereby APPOINTED to

represent petitioner in all future proceedings in this matter, including preparation and filing of a

Case 3:17-cv-03390-WHA Document 28 Filed 07/05/18 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

traverse, and representation of petitioner at an evidentiary hearing, if one is deemed necessary at

a later date.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-03390-WHA Document 28 Filed 07/05/18 Page 2 of 2