Xavier v. Johnson

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 15, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-06210
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GARY R. XAVIER, Case No. 20-06210 EJD (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. 13

14 RAYMOND JOHNSON, Warden,

15 Respondent. 16 (Docket No. 17)

17 18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. On May 6, 2021, the Court 20 set a briefing schedule on the cognizable claims, directing Respondent to file an answer or 21 dispositive motion within sixty days of the order. Dkt. No. 12. Respondent’s answer is 22 currently due no later than August 6, 2021. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment 23 of counsel. Dkt. No. 16. 24 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 25 See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 26 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within 27 the discretion of the district court. Id.; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), 1 || necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and Petitioner’s circumstances are not so 2 || exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for 3 || appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 4 || reconsideration should an evidentiary hearing be necessary to review the merits of 5 || Petitioner’s claims. 6 This order terminates Docket No. 17. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: — July 15, 2021 9 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 10 11 12

2B 15

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 95 Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.20\06210Xavier_deny.atty.docx 26 27