Luna v. Phillips

Luna · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · July 10, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-1686-JDP (P)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies without prejudice Benito Julian Luna’s request for appointed counsel in his habeas proceeding. The court grants a final 21-day extension to file an amended petition and warns that failure to do so will result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Jeremy D. Peterson
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
July 10, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-1686-JDP (P)
Procedural posture
Petitioner in a state habeas action requested appointment of counsel and a third extension of time to file an amended petition after the court determined that the initial petition failed to state a claim.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

federal habeas corpuspost-conviction reliefmotion to amendcivil procedure

Practice areas

Federal habeas corpusPost-conviction reliefCivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether petitioner was entitled to appointment of counsel in the habeas proceeding.
  2. Whether petitioner should receive another extension of time to file an amended petition after failing to comply with prior deadlines.

Holdings

  1. A habeas petitioner has no absolute right to appointed counsel, and appointment is authorized only when the interests of justice so require; on the circumstances presented, the interests of justice did not require appointment at that time.
  2. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the court granted a final twenty-one-day extension to file an amended petition, with failure to comply subject to a recommendation of dismissal for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with court orders.

Key quotations

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. (at 1)
In light of petitioner’s pro se status, he will be afforded a final opportunity to file an amended petition within twenty-one days. (at 1)

Factual background

Petitioner's initial habeas petition did not state a claim. Despite two prior extensions and an order warning that no further extensions would be granted, petitioner did not timely file an amended petition and sought appointment of counsel and another extension.

Procedural history

The court screened the initial petition and found it deficient, allowing petitioner thirty days to amend or voluntarily dismiss. After granting one extension and then a second, final extension accompanied by a warning that no further extensions would be granted, the court considered petitioner's third extension request. The court denied appointment of counsel without prejudice but granted one final twenty-one-day extension to file an amended petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…