Thompson v. Janda

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 9 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE AND DENYING 10 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No. C 12-02850 CW (PR)

WILLIE LOUIS THOMPSON,

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE
AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner,
v.
G.J. JANDA, Warden,

(Docket nos. 9, 10)

Respondent.
________________________________/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

11

challenging his state criminal conviction.

12

Respondent to file an answer to the petition and granted

13

Petitioner leave to file a traverse.

14

eighty-one page response to the petition.

15

for an extension of time to file a traverse.

The Court directed

Respondent has filed an
Petitioner now moves

16

Good cause appearing, the request is GRANTED.

17

shall file his traverse by no later than June 15, 2013.

18

traverse is filed by that date, the petition will be deemed

19

submitted and ready for decision.

20

Petitioner
If no

Petitioner also moves for the appointment of counsel to

21

represent him in this case.

22

does not apply in habeas actions.

23

722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986).

24

district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a

25

habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the

26

interests of justice so require and such person is financially

27

unable to obtain representation.”

28

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel
Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d

Pursuant to statute, however, a

See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

1

Here, given the record presented to date, the Court finds the

2

appointment of counsel is not required.

3

been presented adequately in the petition, and the arguments made

4

in support of the claims are placed in context by the exhibits

5

lodged by Respondent in support of the answer, including the state

6

trial transcripts and the detailed opinion of the California Court

7

of Appeal.

8

Court is not in a position to determine whether an evidentiary

9

hearing will be required.

Petitioner’s claims have

Further, at this early stage of the proceedings, the

In sum, the interests of justice do not

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

require appointment of counsel in the instant case at this time.

11

Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the

12

litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision on its own

13

motion.

14
15

Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.

16

This Order terminates Docket nos. 9 and 10.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: 4/17/2013

____________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE