Opinion
No. C 10-1967 LHK (PR).
October 1, 2010
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 6, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause, within 60 days, why the petition should not be granted. On September 8, 2010, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer and a declaration in support of such motion. On September 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for entry of default and entry of judgment. Although Respondent filed his motion for an extension of time two days after the deadline for filing, based on his declaration and because it appears that Petitioner will not be prejudiced by an extension of time, Respondent's motion is GRANTED, and Petitioner's motion for entry of default and entry of judgment is DENIED. Respondent shall file his answer on or before November 6, 2010. Petitioner shall file any traverse thirty days thereafter.
On September 27, 2010, Petitioner filed a request for a temporary restraining order and renewed his request for appointment of counsel. In the request, Petitioner states that prison officials at the California Men's Colony State Prison are interfering with his ability to access the court and are planning an "adverse transfer." The Court has no jurisdiction to order prison officials to comply with the Court's orders because they are not parties in this action. Moreover, Petitioner is currently housed in California Men's Colony State Prison in San Luis Obispo, which is not in this judicial district. Petitioner must present any claims regarding his conditions of confinement at that prison in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order regarding the California Men's Colony State Prison officials' alleged denial of Petitioner's access to the courts is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to Petitioner's filing of an action in the Central District of California, where California Men's Colony State Prison is located.
With respect to Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if "the court determines that the interests of justice so require," the courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule. Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Petitioner has thus far been able to adequately present his claims for relief. Respondent has been ordered to produce the state record, no evidentiary hearing appears necessary in this case, and no other extraordinary circumstances are apparent. At this time, appointment of counsel is not mandated, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner's request is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte reconsideration of this denial should the developments of this case dictate otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 1, 2010