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)

Download PDF
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?