Ware v. Koenig

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DERRICK A. WARE, Case No. 21-cv-01069-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10 10 C. KOENIG, Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to appoint counsel and respondent 15 filed a motion for an extension. 16 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert 17 v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). But 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a 18 district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines 19 that the interests of justice so require.” Petitioner has presented his claims adequately and the 20 issues are not complex. The Court finds that the interests of justice do warrant the appointment of 21 counsel at this time. 22 For the forgoing reasons: 23 1. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED. His motion to proceed 24 in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED as moot because in forma pauperis status has already 25 been granted. 26 2. Respondent’s request for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10) is granted. An answer 27 1 to the petition may be filed by August 24, 2021. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 6, 2021 4 5 JAMES TO 6 United Stes District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

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