Loyd v. Spearmen
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-07228
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Loyd v. Spearmen, Judge Gilliam granted more time to file a traverse but denied appointed counsel.
Daniel Ray Loyd received more time to file his traverse but was denied appointed counsel. The opinion does not describe any separate effect on Spearmen.
What happened
In Loyd v. Spearmen, Daniel Ray Loyd asked for more time to file a traverse and for the court to appoint a lawyer. The opinion does not decide the underlying habeas claims.
The court granted the extension and ordered Loyd to file his traverse by February 2, 2021. Loyd’s request for appointed counsel cited his inability to afford a lawyer, limited law-library access, and the need for professional assistance.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied appointed counsel because the court found the issues were not complex, Loyd had adequately presented his claims, and he had access to legal resources. The order terminated the docket entry concerning both requests.
The detailed version
- Loyd v. Spearmen · No. 4:18-cv-07228
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 2, 2020
Requests
Daniel Ray Loyd, the petitioner, asked for an extension of time to file a traverse and asked the court to appoint counsel. The order does not address the merits of Loyd’s underlying habeas claims.
Extension of time
The court found good cause and granted Loyd’s request for an extension. It ordered him to file his traverse by February 2, 2021.
Appointment of counsel
The court denied Loyd’s request for appointed counsel. The court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. It also noted that 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) allows a federal district court to appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the court determines that the interests of justice require it.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. determined that appointment was not warranted at that time because the issues were not complex, Loyd had presented his claims adequately, and he had access to legal resources, even though that access was through a paging system rather than in the form he considered most effective. The order terminated Docket No. 30.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.