Merel v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 72

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; DENYING MOTIONFOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. The motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, such that Petitioner must file a traverse no later than July 11, 2011. Petitioner's motion f or appointment of counsel is DENIED. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the instant case. Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/23/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

JOSE ANTONIO MEREL,
Petitioner,

12
13

vs.

14

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
15

Respondent.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-05077 EJD (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
TRAVERSE; DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 71)

17
18

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State Prison in

19

Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

20

challenging his state conviction. Respondent filed an answer to the Court’s Order to

21

Show Cause on May 11, 2011. (Docket No. 11.) Petitioner has filed a motion for an

22

extension of time to file a traverse and appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 71.) The

23

motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, such that Petitioner must file a traverse

24

no later than July 11, 2011.

25

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The Sixth

26

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

27

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
Order Granting EOT; Denying Appt. Of Counsel
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.10\Merel05077_eot-trav.wpd

1

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

2

such person is financially unable to obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. §

3

3006A(a)(2)(B). Here, Petitioner’s claims were adequately presented in the petition.

4

Consequently, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the

5

instant case. Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the

6

litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte.

7
8

DATED:

June 23, 2011

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

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
Order Granting EOT; Denying Appt. Of Counsel
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.10\Merel05077_eot-trav.wpd

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ANTONIO MEREL,

Case Number: CV10-05077 EJD

Petitioner,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
Respondent.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
6/24/2011
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jose Antonio Merel F 18721
Salinas Valley State Prison
Post Office Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960-1050
Dated:

6/24/2011
/s/

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk