Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: May 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . Petitioner proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On October 28, 2014, respondent filed an answer. Petitioner has been provided several extensions to file a traverse, yet despite nearly seven months, he has still not filed a traverse. Petitioner has now filed motions to appoint counsel, for an extension of time, and to view the lodged exhibits. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not app
Summary: ORDER PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . Petitioner proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On October 28, 2014, respondent filed an answer. Petitioner has been provided several extensions to file a traverse, yet despite nearly seven months, he has still not filed a traverse. Petitioner has now filed motions to appoint counsel, for an extension of time, and to view the lodged exhibits. The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not appl..
More
ORDER
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
Petitioner proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 28, 2014, respondent filed an answer. Petitioner has been provided several extensions to file a traverse, yet despite nearly seven months, he has still not filed a traverse. Petitioner has now filed motions to appoint counsel, for an extension of time, and to view the lodged exhibits.
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). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that in habeas cases, whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require", representation may be provided for any financially eligible person. Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and they are not particularly complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.
Petitioner has also requested copies of the documents lodged by respondent. Petitioner states that he was in possession of the state record, but at some point, some of his copies became lost. It appears that petitioner has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a new copy the record over the past seven months. The state court record is approximately 1,072 pages. However, petitioner presents only two claims: (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for advisory counsel as he was representing himself; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied petitioner's motion to continue. Petitioner has not specifically identiffied what portions of the record he requires and why it is necessary for his traverse. Regardless, the court will provide transcripts of the relevant hearings to petitioner.1 Petitioner's request for an extension is granted and he will have until June 29, 2015, to file a traveerse. No additional extensions will be granted and the case will be deemed submitted on that date.
CONCLUSION
1. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 23) is DENIED.
2. The motion for an extension (Dockeet No. 24) is GRANTED and petitioner must file a traverse by June 29, 2015. No additional extensions will be granted and the case will be deemed submitted on that date.
3. The request to view exhibits (Dockeet No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
