Rynhard v. Evans

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 18 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2010)

Rynhard v. Evans

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JEFFREY A. RYNHARD, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 08-5614 LHK (PR) ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PETITIONER TO FILE A TRAVERSE; ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (Docket No. 18)

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the Court is Petitioner's fifth motion for extension of time to file a traverse and a request for counsel. On July 28, 2010, the Court granted Petitioner his fourth extension of time to file a traverse and noted in the order that "No further extension of time will be granted absent emergency circumstances." Petitioner has had almost a year to file his traverse. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for extension of time is DENIED. Petitioner's traverse is overdue, and this matter is submitted. Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel in this action. However, the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if "the court determines that the interests of justice so require," the courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the
Order Denying Extension of Time for Petitioner to File a Traverse; Order Denying Counsel P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.08\Rynhard614.DenyEOT-Traverse-Atty.wpd

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

rule. Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitioner has thus far been able to adequately present his claims for relief. Respondent has produced the state record, which includes any state appellate briefs prepared by counsel. No evidentiary hearing appears necessary in this case, nor are any other extraordinary circumstances apparent. At this time, appointment of counsel is not mandated, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte reconsideration should the developments of this case dictate otherwise. This order terminates docket no. 18. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 11/12/10 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

Order Denying Extension of Time for Petitioner to File a Traverse; Order Denying Counsel P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.08\Rynhard614.DenyEOT-Traverse-Atty.wpd 2