Garcia v. McDowell
- Beth Freeman
- 5:16-cv-05301
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Fisher, Judge Freeman denied counsel but extended Garcia’s deadline to file his response in his federal petition.
Esequiel Garcia, the self-represented prisoner seeking counsel and more time to respond in his federal petition.
What happened
Garcia v. Fisher concerns a California prisoner’s request for a lawyer in his federal challenge to his state-court conviction and a request for more time to respond to the warden’s filing.
Garcia, representing himself, said a prison quarantine prevented him from using the law library or contacting his parents, who were helping him with the case. He asked for emergency appointment of counsel because of the COVID-19 restrictions.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the request for counsel but granted Garcia a 42-day extension, requiring his response to be filed by November 3, 2020.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. McDowell · No. 5:16-cv-05301
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
Esequiel Garcia, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After the respondent filed an answer, Garcia’s response was due September 22, 2020. Garcia then filed an emergency application asking the court to appoint counsel because a prison quarantine prevented him from accessing the law library and contacting his parents, who were assisting him.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply to federal challenges to state custody. Unless an evidentiary hearing is needed, appointment of counsel is left to the court’s discretion. The court stated that an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary and that Garcia’s COVID-19-related circumstances were not exceptional because prisoners across the country faced similar conditions. The court therefore denied the emergency application for appointment of counsel.
Extension of Time and Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman found good cause for another extension of time to file Garcia’s response. The court granted a 42-day extension and set November 3, 2020, as the filing deadline. The matter would be considered submitted on the date the response was due, and the order terminated Docket No. 64.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.