(HC) Loyd v. Spearmen

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL RAY LOYD, Case No. 18-cv-07228-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; 9 v. DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 10 SPEARMEN, Re: Dkt. No. 30 11 Respondent.

13 Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file his traverse and his request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 30.

15 Good cause being shown, Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file his traverse is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 30. Petitioner shall file his traverse by February 2, 2021.

17 Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Petitioner argues that the Court should appoint counsel because he is unable to afford counsel, because the interests of justice require physical access to a law library and currently he can only access the law library via a paging system, and because professional assistance is required to protect his interests. Dkt. No. 30 at 5, 7. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.

22 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court finds that the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time because the issues are not complex, Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and Petitioner has access to legal resources, although not in the form he finds most effective.

1 This order terminates Dkt. No. 30.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: 11/2/2020 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. / 5 United States District Judge a 12

= 17 Z 18