Noel v. Warden
- M. Chen
- 3:19-cv-03118
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Noel v. Warden, Judge M. Chen extended response deadlines and denied Noel’s request for appointed counsel.
Patrick E. Noel and the Warden: the Warden received more time to respond, Noel received a deadline to file a reply, and Noel’s request for appointed counsel was denied.
What happened
In Noel v. Warden, the respondent asked for more time to answer or otherwise respond to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court granted that request.
The court set March 20, 2020, as the new deadline for the respondent’s answer or other response, and April 17, 2020, as the deadline for Noel’s reply.
Judge M. Chen denied Noel’s request for appointed counsel because the court determined that the interests of justice did not require counsel in this action.
The detailed version
- Noel v. Warden · No. 3:19-cv-03118
- M. Chen
- Jan. 17, 2020
Rulings
The court granted the respondent’s request for an extension of the deadline to file an answer or another responsive pleading to the habeas petition. The respondent’s new deadline was March 20, 2020. The petitioner’s deadline to file and serve a reply, called a traverse, was April 17, 2020.
The court denied the petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. The court explained that federal law allows a district court to appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner is financially unable to obtain representation. The court concluded that the interests of justice did not require appointment of counsel in this action.
Disposition
The order addressed deadlines and representation. It did not decide the underlying habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.