Olive-Goffner

Olive-Goffner v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 20194:19-cv-01222California655 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ASHON OLIVE-GOFFNER, Case No. 19-cv-01222-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 23 10 RALPH DIAZ, 11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner, an inmate at Centinela State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of 14 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a letter requesting appointment 15 of counsel to assist him with his “ongoing claims” and “new claims.” Dkt. No. 23. Petitioner 16 expressed concern that the Court had found his new claims to be “moot,” arguing that his new 17 claims are valid and that if he had counsel, he could better present these claims. Id. 18 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See 19 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 3006A(a)(2)(B) of the United 20 States Code, title 18, authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner 21 whenever “the court determines that the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.