Frank v. Arnald

N.D. California

Frank v. Arnald

DecidedJanuary 31, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-03967

StatusUnknown

This text of Frank v. Arnald (Frank v. Arnald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. Arnald, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY A. FRANK, Case No. 18-cv-03967-EMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ? v. COUNSEL 10 ERIC ARNALD, Docket No. 26 11 Respondent. 12

13 Petitioner has filed a second request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this 14 || action. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court 3 15 || determines that the interests of Justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain 16 representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the 3 17 discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 || Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 19 || appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. At this time, the 20 || interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. Petitioner has adequately 21 || pled his claims for relief and states that all of his claims previously were presented in state court. 22 || Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 26. 23 The March 13, 2020 deadline for Petitioner to file a traverse remains in place. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: January 31, 2020 <4 28 ED M. CHEN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY A. FRANK, Case No. 18-cv-03967-EMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ? v. COUNSEL 10 ERIC ARNALD, Docket No. 26 11 Respondent. 12

13 Petitioner has filed a second request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this 14 || action. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court 3 15 || determines that the interests of Justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain 16 representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the 3 17 discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 || Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 19 || appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. At this time, the 20 || interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. Petitioner has adequately 21 || pled his claims for relief and states that all of his claims previously were presented in state court. 22 || Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 26. 23 The March 13, 2020 deadline for Petitioner to file a traverse remains in place. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: January 31, 2020 <4 28 ED M. CHEN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frank v. Arnald, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-arnald-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack