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)

Download PDF
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

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?