Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05013-SI

Document 16

Filed 05/07/2008

Page 1 of 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MOORING, Petitioner, v. J. WALKER, Respondent. /

No. C 07-5013 SI (pr) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. Based on the materials in the court file, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is required in this action to prevent a due process violation. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. (Docket # 15.) The deadline for petitioner to file and serve his traverse is extended to June 27, 2008 to permit him additional time in the event he was waiting for a ruling on his motion for appointment of counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 7, 2008 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge