Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00704/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00704-0/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

EBRAHIM MUSSA MOHAMED, Civil No. 15-CV-0704-BEN (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

v.

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested appointment of counsel to

represent him on appeal of this Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 15). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s 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. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); 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) (West 2000); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th

Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit,

“[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless

-1-

Case 3:15-cv-00704-WQH-WVG Document 16 Filed 11/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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 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. 

Here, Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date and Petitioner has a good

grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such circumstances, a district court does

not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel as it is

simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

Cir. 1987). Moreover, Petitioner has not provided any justification supporting his request. His

request for counsel merely states that he has no assets or income. Therefore, although Petitioner

has submitted evidence that he has no funds to pay for counsel, he has failed to articulate any

reason that justice may require appointment of counsel. Therefore at this stage of the

proceedings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of

counsel.

For the above-stated reasons, the “interests of justice” in this matter do not compel the

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 30, 2015

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

-2-

Case 3:15-cv-00704-WQH-WVG Document 16 Filed 11/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2