Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01572-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

William Allen Garrett,

Petitioner,

v.

Dr. Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, 

Respondent.

Case No. 14cv1572 BEN (PCL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. 17)

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner requests the Court appoint counsel to assist him in his habeas case because the

issues in his case are particularly complex. He argues that he has mental health issues and severe

disabilities. (Doc. 17.) 

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

by state prisoners. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991 (citing Pennsylvania v.

Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“The right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of

right, and no further”); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that there

currently exists no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings); Chaney

v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, courts may appoint counsel for

financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where “the

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Whether

or not to appoint counsel is a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless an evidentiary hearing is

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 22 Filed 09/30/14 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

necessary. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the

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

hearing on the petition). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the

district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the

petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Petitioner has been able to articulate his habeas claims to this Court. He has not

demonstrated that he is unable to communicate with this court due to his mental issues or

disabilities. He also has not shown that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Thus, Petitioner’s

motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 

Petitioner is reminded that he should submit his Traverse by October 27, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 30, 2014 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Benitez

All Parties and Counsel of Record

14cv1572 BEN (PCL)

2

Case 3:14-cv-01572-BEN-PCL Document 22 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 2