Torres v. Sherman et al
ORDER (1) Denying 15 Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Counsel to File Traverse to Respondent's Answer to Petition and (2) Granting 13 Application for a 30-Day Enlargement of Time to File Traverse to Respondent's Answer. Traverse by Petitioner due 1/10/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 11/22/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARRY LUIS TORRES,
Case No.: 17CV978 MMA (BGS)
(1) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
TO FILE TRAVERSE TO
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO
(2) GRANTING APPLICATION FOR
A 30-DAY ENLARGEMENT OF
TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE TO
STUART SHERMAN, Warden,
[ECF Nos. 13, 15]
Petitioner Larry Luis Torres has filed an Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of
Counsel to File Traverse to Respondent’s Answer to Petition and an Ex Parte Application
for a 30-Day Enlargement of Time to File Traverse to Respondent’s Answer to the
Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF Nos. 13, 15.) Petitioner seek appointment of
counsel for purposes of filing a Traverse on his behalf. (Id. at 2.) He indicates that he
needs counsel to file the Traverse because he is awaiting transfer and expects to be
17CV978 MMA (BGS)
without his property until the requested December 10, 20171 deadline to file his Traverse.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus
actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v.
Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728
(9th Cir. 1986). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas
corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular
case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.”
Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. Although the Court has
“discretion to appoint counsel for indigents when it determines ‘that the interests of
justice so require.’” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)).
Here, the only basis put forward for appointment of counsel is Petitioner’s transfer
and the impact that may have on his ability to timely file his Traverse due to limitations
on his access to his legal materials. To the extent this could constitute a due process
violation, it is better remedied through an additional extension of time beyond when
Petitioner expects to regain access to his legal materials.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED and his
request for an extension of time to file his Traverse is GRANTED. Petitioner must file
his Traverse on or before January 10, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2017
Petitioner’s Traverse is currently due on November 10, 2017.
17CV978 MMA (BGS)
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?