Ware v. Koenig
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-01069
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ware v. Koenig, Judge Donato denied appointed counsel, denied as moot a fee-waiver motion, and granted the respondent more time to answer the habeas petition.
Derrick A. Ware’s request for appointed counsel was denied, his fee-waiver motion was denied as moot because the status had already been granted, and C. Koenig received an extension until August 24, 2021, to answer the petition.
What happened
In Ware v. Koenig, Derrick A. Ware, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging his custody and asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The respondent, C. Koenig, asked for more time to respond.
The court denied Ware’s request for appointed counsel. It also denied as moot his request to proceed without paying filing fees because that status had already been granted. The court granted Koenig’s request for an extension, allowing an answer to be filed by August 24, 2021.
Judge Donato entered the order on July 6, 2021. The order did not decide whether Ware’s habeas claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Ware v. Koenig · No. 3:21-cv-01069
- James Donato
- July 6, 2021
Background
Derrick A. Ware, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while representing himself. He moved for appointment of counsel and moved to proceed without paying filing fees. Respondent C. Koenig requested an extension of time to respond to the petition.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas cases. It also noted that federal law allows a district court to appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the court determines that the interests of justice require it. The opinion states that Ware had presented his claims adequately and that the issues were not complex.
The text contains an apparent inconsistency: it says that the court found that “the interests of justice do warrant” appointing counsel, but the numbered ruling denies Ware’s motion to appoint counsel. The order’s operative disposition is the denial of that motion.
Rulings
The court denied Ware’s motion to appoint counsel. It denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, to proceed without paying filing fees—as moot because that status had already been granted. The court granted Koenig’s request for an extension of time and allowed an answer to the petition to be filed by August 24, 2021.
The order addressed appointment of counsel, filing-fee status, and scheduling. It did not rule on the merits of Ware’s habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.