Hildebrand v. Campbell

Opinion

2 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL HILDEBRAND, Case No. 24-cv-01791 BLF (PR)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE ADDENDUM; DENYING 13 v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; GRANTING 14 TRISHA CAMPBELL, EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION 15 Respondent. (Docket Nos. 10, 12) 16

17 18 Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. The Court found the petition presented a 20 timeliness issue and ordered Respondent to respond. Dkt. No. 9. On August 14, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to file an addendum which to addresses the timeliness bar. Dkt. 21 No. 10. The motion is GRANTED. 22 On August 28, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on various 23 grounds, including timeliness. Dkt. No. 11. Petitioner’s opposition is currently due by 24 September 25, 2024. Dkt. No. 9 at 4. 25 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, asserting the “certain 26 intricacies and complexities of this case… in the interest of justice, fairness, and the right 27 to due process.” Dkt. No. 12. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in 28 habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. ]

appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. /d.; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d ; 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). Here, an evidentiary hearing 4 || does not appear to be necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and Petitioner’s 5 || circumstances are not so exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, 6 || Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the 7 || Court’s sua sponte reconsideration should an evidentiary hearing be necessary to review 8 || the merits of Petitioner’s claims. 9 In the interest of justice, Petitioner 1s granted an extension of time to file opposition 10 || to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s opposition shall be filed no later than 11 || October 23, 2024. Respondent shall file and serve a reply within fourteen (14) days of D receipt of Petitioner’s opposition, and include a response to Petitioner’s addendum. Dkt.

No. 10.

4 This order terminates Docket Nos. 10 and 12. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: September 20, 2024 __ fliinfhacicen _

16 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Granting Mot. to File; Denying Appt of Counsel; Grant EOT 25 P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.24\0179 1 Hildebrand_atty&eot-opp.docx 26 27 28