Rutledge v. Barnes

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING 45 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING 43 PETITIONER'S MOTION "TO GRANT PETITIONER'S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS." Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 14, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

THOMAS RUTLEDGE,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOMINGO URIBE, JR., Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________ )

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 08-5738 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL; DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION “TO
GRANT PETITIONER’S WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS”
(Docket Nos. 43, 45)

15
16

On October 29, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the
17

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thereafter,
18

the Court ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted, or
19

alternatively, to file a motion to dismiss. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition, and
20

petitioner has filed a traverse. Consequently, the petition is deemed submitted, and a
21

decision on the merits will be filed in a separate order.
22

Now pending before the Court is: (1) petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel;
23

and (2) petitioner’s “motion to grant petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.”
24

1.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

25

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this
26

action. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert
27

v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to
28

statute, however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

1

petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such

2

person is financially unable to obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

3

Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the petition, and the interests of

4

justice do not otherwise require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, petitioner’s

5

motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

6

2.

“Motion to Grant Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus”

7

In addition to the above motion, petitioner has filed a motion asking the Court to grant

8

his petition, on the asserted ground respondent failed to comply with the Court’s deadline for

9

filing an answer to the petition. By its order of April 29, 2011, the Court extended to June
27, 2011 the deadline by which respondent was required to respond to the petition.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on that date. Accordingly, the answer was timely

12

filed, and the motion will be denied.

13

CONCLUSION

14
15

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

16

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

17

2. Petitioner’s “motion to grant petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus” is hereby denied.

18
19

This order terminates Docket Nos. 43 and 45.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: December 14, 2011

22

_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2