Carrero v. Holbrook
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-06110
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carrero v. Holbrook, Judge Gilliam granted more time for a habeas filing but denied counsel, without prejudice to later appointment if circumstances require.
Luke J. Carrero, the self-represented petitioner, received additional time to file his traverse but was not appointed counsel at this stage.
What happened
In Carrero v. Holbrook, Luke J. Carrero, an incarcerated person representing himself, asked for more time to file his reply in a federal petition challenging his state custody and asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
The court granted more time and set June 5, 2020, as the filing deadline. It denied the request for a lawyer because the petition presented the legal claims and issues adequately; the denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required it.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on April 29, 2020. The order resolved the request identified as ECF No. 11 but did not decide the underlying petition.
The detailed version
- Carrero v. Holbrook · No. 4:19-cv-06110
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
Luke J. Carrero, an inmate at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, filed this self-represented action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request for federal court review of allegedly unlawful custody. Carrero asked for an extension of time to file his traverse, meaning his reply to the respondent's filing, and requested appointment of counsel. The requests were in ECF No. 11.
Analysis
The court found good cause for extending the filing deadline and ordered Carrero to file his traverse by June 5, 2020.
The court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, a district court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it and the person cannot afford representation. The court said appointment is generally discretionary and may be required when necessary to prevent a due-process violation. It denied counsel because the record did not show that justice required an appointment: Carrero's petition adequately presented his legal claims and showed a good understanding of the issues.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Carrero's request for an extension of time to file his traverse and DENIED his request for appointment of counsel. The denial of counsel was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later on its own initiative if circumstances required it. The order terminated ECF No. 11. The court did not rule on the merits of Carrero's underlying petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.