Sevchuck v. Cate
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/23/13 ORDERING that Petitioners request for an extension of time to file his traverse 15 is granted. Petitioner shall file his traverse within 30 days of this order. Petitioners request t hat the court direct CDCR personal at [the Sierra Conservation Center] to stop preventing CDCR prisoner Eric Knapp from receiving mail from petitioners Sevchucks family which contains Petitioners case-related legal materials is denied. Petitioners request for the appointment of counsel is denied. Petitioners request that Mr. Eric Knapp be identified as petitioners next friend is denied.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
GENNADIY SEVCHUCK,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
No. 2:12-cv-2857 KJM CKD P
MATHEW CATE,
14
Respondent.
15
ORDER
/
16
Petitioner is a California petitioner proceeding pro se with an application for writ
17
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has requested an extension of time to file his
18
traverse. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted.
19
Petitioner also requests that the court “direct CDCR personal at [the Sierra
20
Conservation Center] to stop preventing CDCR prisoner Eric Knapp from receiving mail from
21
petitioner’s Sevchuck’s family which contains Petitioner’s case-related legal materials.”
22
Apparently, Mr. Knapp has been assisting petitioner with his traverse. The court will not grant
23
petitioner the order he requests at this point, as it does not appear that whatever problems he is
24
experiencing with CDCR staff are permanent. As indicated above, the court will grant petitioner
25
an extension of time to file his traverse. If, at some point, it appears that staff are stopping
26
/////
1
1
petitioner from filing a traverse as opposed to causing reasonable delay related to prison
2
management, the court will consider entering an order concerning the conduct of staff.
3
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no
4
absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d
5
453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at
6
any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing
7
§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be
8
served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
9
Finally, petitioner requests that Mr. Knapp be recognized as petitioner’s “next
10
friend.” One of the requirements for appointing a “next friend” is that the person seeking to be
11
the “next friend” be “truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks
12
to litigate, . . . and it has been further suggested that a ‘next friend’ must have some significant
13
relationship with the real party in interest.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990).
14
There has not been a showing that petitioner and Mr. Knapp have the sort of relationship
15
warranting Mr. Knapp’s appointment as “next friend.”
16
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file his traverse (Dkt. No. 15)
18
is granted.
19
2. Petitioner shall file his traverse within 30 days of this order.
20
3. Petitioner’s request that the court “direct CDCR personal at [the Sierra
21
Conservation Center] to stop preventing CDCR prisoner Eric Knapp from receiving mail from
22
petitioner’s Sevchuck’s family which contains Petitioner’s case-related legal materials” is denied.
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
4. Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
2
5. Petitioner’s request that Mr. Eric Knapp be identified as petitioner’s “next
3
4
friend” is denied.
Dated: April 23, 2013
5
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
1
sevc2857.111
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?