Gomez v. Sullivan
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-06129
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. Sullivan, Judge Illston denied Gomez’s request for appointed counsel because briefing was finished and counsel would not aid the case.
Elroy Pedro Gomez’s request for appointed counsel was denied; the order did not resolve his underlying habeas claim.
What happened
In Gomez v. Sullivan, Elroy Pedro Gomez asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him in his habeas case. The opinion does not decide the underlying habeas claim.
The court said Gomez had adequately presented his claim and that briefing was complete. It would not reopen the deadline for his optional reply because Gomez had not shown a good reason or diligence for missing it. The court also said there would be no evidentiary hearing.
Judge Susan Illston ruled that appointing counsel at that late stage would not help resolve the case. She denied Gomez’s request for appointment of counsel.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Sullivan · No. 3:19-cv-06129
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 20, 2020
Background
Petitioner Elroy Pedro Gomez requested appointment of counsel to represent him in this habeas action. The request concerned Docket No. 14. The opinion states that an attorney was helping Gomez with the case and apparently prepared the state-court habeas petition that Gomez attached to his federal petition.
Legal standard
The court explained that under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), a district court may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner who cannot afford representation when the interests of justice require it. Appointment is generally discretionary and becomes mandatory only when the circumstances show that counsel is necessary to prevent a due-process violation.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the interests of justice did not require appointed counsel. It found that Gomez had adequately pleaded his claim. Briefing in the case was finished, and the deadline for Gomez to file a traverse—a reply to the respondent’s response—had been May 29, 2020.
The court declined to reopen that deadline because Gomez had not shown good cause for missing it or diligence in seeking permission to file late. The court noted that Gomez had a high school degree. It also stated that any uncertainty about the deadline should have been resolved by an earlier order extending the deadline to May 29, 2020, which apparently reached Gomez because it was not returned as undeliverable. The court further explained that a traverse was optional and that it would not hold an evidentiary hearing. As a result, appointing counsel at that stage would not aid resolution of the case.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston denied Gomez’s request for appointment of counsel. The order addressed counsel only and did not decide the merits of Gomez’s underlying habeas claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.