Dunn v. Covello
- Yvonne Rogers
- 5:21-cv-09036
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dunn v. Covello, Judge Rogers denied counsel and hearing requests but granted Dunn 60 days to file his traverse.
Petitioner Keylen M. Dunn’s requests for counsel and an evidentiary hearing were denied, while his deadline to file a traverse was extended; the underlying habeas claims remained pending.
What happened
In Dunn v. Covello, Keylen M. Dunn asked the court to appoint a lawyer and hold an evidentiary hearing in his habeas case.
The court said appointment was not warranted because the case did not currently appear to involve the circumstances that usually justify counsel. It also found that the claims could be decided from the existing record without outside evidence.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied both requests, while allowing Dunn up to 60 days from the order to file his traverse, or written response. The denial of counsel was without prejudice to the court reconsidering it if a hearing later became necessary.
The detailed version
- Dunn v. Covello · No. 5:21-cv-09036
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 21, 2023
Background
Petitioner Keylen M. Dunn requested appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. His traverse, meaning his written response in the habeas proceeding, had been due June 5, 2023, but he had not filed it.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, a court may appoint counsel for a financially unable habeas petitioner when the interests of justice require it. The court noted that appointment is generally limited to circumstances such as capital cases, substantial or complex legal or factual issues, an uneducated or impaired petitioner, a likely need for expert assistance, an inability to investigate important facts, or factual complexity.
The court found that appointment of counsel was not apparent to be warranted at that stage. It therefore denied Dunn’s request. The denial was without prejudice to the court reconsidering appointment on its own if it later determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary after considering the merits of Dunn’s claims.
Evidentiary Hearing
The court found no indication that an evidentiary hearing was required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). It stated that Dunn’s claims did not rely on evidence outside the existing record and that the record provided a factual basis for deciding the claims. The court left open the possibility of later deciding that additional fact-finding was needed, either through a hearing or through less formal methods such as sworn witness declarations. It denied the request for an evidentiary hearing.
Ruling and Schedule
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Dunn’s motions for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. The court granted him an extension of time to file his traverse, allowing him to file it up to and including 60 days from the date of the order. If he did not file a traverse, the petition would be treated as submitted on the traverse’s due date. The order terminated Docket Nos. 32 and 33.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.