Rutledge v. Barnes

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING 37 RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING 36 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 29, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden, )
)
)
Respondent.
____________________________ )
THOMAS RUTLEDGE,

No. C 08-5738 MMC (PR)
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME; DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
(Docket Nos. 36, 37)

15

17
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

16

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file
a response to the petition is hereby GRANTED. Respondent shall file a response to the
petition no later than June 27, 2011. Within thirty days of the date such answer or motion
is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent any traverse or
opposition thereto. If respondent files a motion to dismiss, respondent shall file a reply to
petitioner’s opposition within fifteen days of the date such opposition is filed.
Petitioner has moved for the appointment of counsel to assist him in presenting his
claims. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions.
Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986).
Pursuant to statute, however, a district court is authorized 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.” See 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(a)(2)(B). Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the petition;

1

consequently, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel and petitioner’s

2

motion is hereby DENIED. Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of

3

the litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte.

4

This order terminates Docket Nos. 36 and 37.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

DATED: April 29, 2011
____________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2