Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00863/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00863-0/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 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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 

RONALD DUANE DUNHAM, 

Petitioner,

vs. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF, 

STAN SHIFF, et al., 

Respondents.

 Case No.: 18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL [ECF NO. 7] 

Petitioner Ronald Duane Dunham (“Petitioner”) has filed a motion for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 7.) 

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

corpus actions. McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 

801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 

867 (1986). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, financially eligible 

habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain 

representation whenever a magistrate judge or the district court “determines that 

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

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 9 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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

v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979 

(1991). The interests of justice can also 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; Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 

1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Here, however, there is no indication that an 

evidentiary hearing is necessary. 

 The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is 

necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah, 

18 F.3d at 573. In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for 

habeas 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. A due process violation may 

occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the 

petitioner. Id. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be necessary if the 

petitioner is of such limited education as to be incapable of presenting his claims. 

Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). When the issues 

involved in a section 2254 habeas action can be properly resolved on the basis 

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

motion for appointment of counsel. Travis v. Lockhart, 787 F.2d 409, 411 (8th 

Cir. 1986). 

 In the instant case, Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. 

It appears he has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. The 

Petition was pled sufficiently to warrant this Court’s issuance of an Order 

Requiring Response to Petition, which directed Respondents to file an Answer or 

other responsive pleading. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) At this stage of the proceedings, it 

appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues presented on the 

basis of the state court record. Under such circumstances, a district court does 

not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of 

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 9 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18CV0863 GPC (JMA) 

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

counsel because it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not 

require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel is, therefore, DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00863-GPC-LL Document 9 Filed 05/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3