McClendon v. Tilton

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING 23 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; DENYING 23 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 27, 2012.(mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

ANDRE D. McCLENDON,
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES TILTON, Director,
)
California Department of Corrections )
and Rehabilitation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________ )

No. C 09-0647 MMC (PR)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE;
DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Docket No. 23)

14
15

On February 13, 2009, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

16

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

17

has filed an answer to the petition. Now before the Court is: (1) petitioner’s motion for an

18

extension of time to file a traverse; and (2) petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel.

19

1.

20

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a traverse is

21

Extension of Time

hereby GRANTED. Petitioner shall file his traverse no later than August 22, 2012.

22

2.

Appointment of Counsel

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. Should the circumstances of the case

3

materially change, the Court may reconsider petitioner’s request sua sponte.

4

This order terminates Docket No. 23.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

DATED: July 27, 2012

_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2