Torrence v. Matteson
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-01699
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Torrence v. Matteson, Judge Chhabria granted more time, restored permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denied appointed counsel.
Willie A. Torrence was given 60 additional days to file an amended petition and permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, but his request for appointed counsel was denied. The original petition’s dismissal with permission to amend remained in effect.
What happened
In Torrence v. Matteson, Willie A. Torrence asked for more time to amend his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, requested a lawyer, and sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. His original petition had been dismissed with permission to amend because it was too long and repeated claims without clearly identifying the claims he wanted to bring.
The court found that Torrence had made a good-faith effort to pay the filing fee but could not do so. It also found that appointing a lawyer was not necessary at that time because Torrence could clarify his claims in an amended petition and had received more time to file it.
Judge Vince Chhabria granted the extension-of-time motion, denied the motion to appoint counsel, and vacated the earlier denial of permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Torrence received an additional 60 days from the order to file an amended petition, and the dismissal of the original petition with permission to amend remained in effect.
The detailed version
- Torrence v. Matteson · No. 3:22-cv-01699
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Willie A. Torrence filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief through the federal habeas process. The court had previously dismissed his original petition because it was too lengthy and included too many repeating claims to make clear which claims he intended to raise. The earlier order allowed him to file an amended petition.
Torrence filed three relevant motions: a motion for an extension of time to file the amended petition, a motion to appoint counsel, and a request to proceed without paying the filing fee. He explained that he was indigent and could not afford a lawyer. He also stated that access to the law library had been limited because of COVID-19 lockdowns.
Rulings
The court granted the motion for an extension of time. It gave Torrence an additional 60 days from October 26, 2022, to file an amended petition.
The court vacated its earlier denial of Torrence’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, and granted him permission to proceed on that basis. The court found that Torrence had made a good-faith effort to pay but had been unable to do so.
The court denied the motion to appoint counsel. It explained that the constitutional right to counsel does not apply in these federal habeas proceedings and that appointment under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) is discretionary, based on whether the interests of justice require it. The court concluded that counsel was not warranted at that time because Torrence had not yet filed an amended petition and could address the clarity problems by stating only the claims he sought to raise. The court stated that it could appoint counsel later if, after reviewing the case further, it determined that counsel was warranted.
Effect of the Order
The extension-of-time motion was granted, the motion to appoint counsel was denied, and the earlier denial of permission to proceed without paying the filing fee was vacated. The remainder of the prior order, including the dismissal of the original petition with permission to amend, remained intact. The court did not decide the merits of Torrence’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.