Taylor v. Jaime

Background

Namon Taylor, a state prisoner incarcerated at Alameda County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a conviction from Alameda County. George Jaime filed an answer to the court’s order requiring a response. Taylor said he did not receive that answer because he had been transferred to another correctional facility. Jaime later served the answer again at Taylor’s current address.

The court had already extended Taylor’s deadline to file a traverse, meaning his written response to Jaime’s answer. Taylor then asked for appointed counsel and another extension. He argued that he could not competently litigate the case because the jail did not provide physical access to a law library and legal research materials took two to three weeks to arrive.

Rulings

The court denied Taylor’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply in habeas cases, although a federal law allows a court to appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it. The court found that appointment was not warranted at that time because the issues were not complex, Taylor had presented his claims adequately, and he had access to legal resources, although not in the form he preferred.

The court granted Taylor’s request for more time to file his traverse and ordered him to file it by November 23, 2020. The order terminated docket entry 33. It addressed counsel and filing time, not the merits of Taylor’s challenge to his conviction.

Disposition

The request for appointed counsel was denied. The request for an extension of time to file the traverse was granted. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.