Frank v. Arnald
- Edward Chen
- 3:18-cv-03967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Frank v. Arnald, Judge Chen denied Anthony A. Frank’s request for appointed counsel and kept the filing deadline unchanged.
Anthony A. Frank’s request for appointed counsel was denied, and the March 13, 2020 deadline for filing a traverse remained unchanged.
What happened
Anthony A. Frank, the petitioner in Frank v. Arnald, asked the court a second time to appoint a lawyer for him in this case.
The court said appointment is allowed when the interests of justice require it and the person cannot afford a lawyer. It found that appointment was not required at this time because Frank had adequately stated his claims and said he had already presented them in state court.
Judge Chen denied the request for appointed counsel. The March 13, 2020 deadline for Frank to file his response remained in place.
The detailed version
- Frank v. Arnald · No. 3:18-cv-03967
- Edward Chen
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Anthony A. Frank, the petitioner, filed a second request for appointment of counsel in his case against Eric Arnald. The opinion concerns only that request.
Legal standard
The court explained that a district court may appoint a lawyer for a habeas petitioner when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation. Appointment is generally discretionary. It is mandatory only when the circumstances show that a lawyer is needed to prevent a violation of due process.
Ruling
The court determined that the interests of justice did not require appointing counsel at that time. It noted that Frank had adequately stated his claims for relief and had said that all of his claims had previously been presented in state court. The court therefore denied Frank’s request for appointment of counsel. It also stated that the March 13, 2020 deadline for Frank to file a traverse—a written response—remained in place.
Disposition
The request for appointment of counsel, Docket No. 26, was denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.