1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIE M. CLAY, Case No. 19-cv-06320-HSG Petitioner, 8 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 9 v. COUNSEL; GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 10 ROBERT NEUSCHNID, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 32 Respondents. 11 12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Solano State Prison, has filed a pro se petition 14 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

challenging a conviction from Contra 15 Costa County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has filed a pleading requesting that the Court 16 appoint him counsel to assist him with filing a traverse in this action. Dkt. No. 32. Petitioner 17 reports that the prison instituted a Covid-19 lockdown which limited his access to the law library 18 in January and February 2021.

at 1–2. Petitioner also reports that he previously requested an 19 extension of time to file a traverse, which was never docketed with the Court.

. In 20 addition, Petitioner asserts that he has been unable to review the supplemental video filings in this 21 case because he does not have access to a DVD player.

. 22 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert 23 v.Goldsmith,

(9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 24 authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court 25 determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis,

, 26 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the 27 1 legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or 2 physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in 3 framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which the petitioner is in no position to investigate 4 crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is 5 mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 6 necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney,

. The Court finds that 7 the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time because the issues 8 are not complex, and Petitioner has shown that he can present his claims adequately. The Court 9 therefore exercises its discretion and DENIES Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel 10 without prejudice to sua sponte appointing counsel if circumstances so require. See, e.g., LaMere 11 v.Risley,

(9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in denying appointment of 12 counsel where pleadings illustrated that petitioner had good understanding of issues and ability to 13 present forcefully and coherently his contentions); Bashor v. Risley,

(9th Cir. 14 1984) (no abuse of discretion in denying request for appointment of counsel where petitioner was 15 over 60 and had no background in law, but thoroughly presented issues in petition and 16 accompanying memorandum). 17 With respect to the supplemental video filings, Dkt. No. 31, Petitioner should seek the 18 assistance of the prison librarian in viewing the videos. The Court requests that the prison 19 litigation coordinator and law librarian assist Petitioner in viewing the videos. 20 Finally, the Court construes Petitioner’s filing to include a request for an extension of time 21 to file a traverse. The Court notes that more than five months have elapsed since the filing of 22 Respondent’s Answer in this case. Dkt. No. 21. Although Covid-19 restrictions may have limited 23 Petitioner’s access to the law library, it appears that Petitioner did have access prior to January 24 2021. Given that the traverse was due on November 9, 2020, Petitioner has not shown good cause 25 for his delay in prosecuting this case. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the Court grants 26 Petitioner an additional forty-five (45) days from the date of this order to file a traverse in this 27 action. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: 3/19/2021 3 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

15

QO 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28