Ware v. Koenig

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK A. WARE, Case No. 21-cv-01069-JD

Petitioner,

ORDER v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10

C. KOENIG,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to appoint counsel and respondent filed a motion for an extension.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). But 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.” Petitioner has presented his claims adequately and the issues are not complex. The Court finds that the interests of justice do warrant the appointment of counsel at this time.

For the forgoing reasons:

1. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED as moot because in forma pauperis status has already been granted.

2. Respondent’s request for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10) is granted. An answer 1 to the petition may be filed by August 24, 2021.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 Dated: July 6, 2021

JAMES TO 6 United Stes District Judge Z 18