Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02676/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02676-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL WILLIAMS, Civil

No. 13cv2676-LAB (DHB)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 2]

v.

DAVID LONG, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, Lionel Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested

appointment of counsel to pursue his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [EFC No. 2.] The request for appointment of counsel is

denied without prejudice.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus

actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v.

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728

(9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the

interests of justice so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (2010); Terrovona v.

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234

(9th Cir. 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).

- 1 - 13cv2676-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-02676-LAB-DHB Document 9 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an

evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at

728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary

when no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791

F.2d at 728. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary in the

future, the Court will require appointment of counsel at that time.

In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief

are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate

that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d

at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. The Ninth Circuit considers the clarity and

coherence of a petitioner’s district court pleadings to determine the necessity of

appointment of counsel; if clear and understandable, the court typically finds appointment

of counsel unnecessary. LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987.) Further,

the Ninth Circuit notes that “[w]here the issues involved can be properly resolved on the

basis of the state court record, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a

request for court-appointed counsel.” Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.

At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is

required to prevent a due process violation. There is no indication that the issues are too

complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. From the face of the

Petition, filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal

issues involved. He has also been able to articulate the factual and legal bases of his

claim in a clear and coherent manner. Indeed, Petitioner has been successful in getting

a Petition on file, filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and filing the

instant motion. Moreover, the Petition in this case was pleaded sufficiently to warrant

this Court’s order directing Respondent to file an answer or other responsive pleading to

the Petition. Finally, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues

involved on the basis of the state court record. Therefore, the Court finds that the

interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. 

- 2 - 13cv2676-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-02676-LAB-DHB Document 9 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 18, 2013

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 13cv2676-LAB (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-02676-LAB-DHB Document 9 Filed 11/18/13 Page 3 of 3