Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00485/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00485-1/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

1 11cv0485 BTM(PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALDINE MEYERS,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv0485 BTM(PCL)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS AND DENYING

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

v.

JAVIER CAVAZOS,

Respondent.

Petitioner has filed a request for an extension of time to file objections to the Report

and Recommendation. Petitioner’s request is GRANTED. Petitioner’s objections are now

due on or before March 1, 2012. Any reply to the objections must be filed on or before March

19, 2012. The hearing on Report and Recommendation is continued to March 23, 2012 at

11:00 a.m. Unless the Court directs otherwise, this matter will be resolved without oral

argument, and no personal appearances are necessary.

Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 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

Case 3:11-cv-00485-BTM-PCL Document 21 Filed 01/19/12 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

2 11cv0485 BTM(PCL)

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 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).

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;

Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Rule 8(c). 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. 

No evidentiary hearing is warranted in this case. Therefore, the discretionary standard

applies. 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; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. A due process violation may occur in the absence of

counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. In addition, the appointment

of counsel may be necessary if the petitioner has such limited education that he or she is

incapable of presenting his or her claims. Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir.

1970).

The Court is not convinced that appointment of counsel is required to prevent a due

process violation. Petitioner appears to be fully capable of litigating her claim on her own.

Thus, at this time, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment

of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2012

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00485-BTM-PCL Document 21 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2