Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01210/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01210-1/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 07cv1210-BTM(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM R. HUTTO,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent .

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv1210-BTM(NLS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 9]

Petitioner William R. Hutto (“Petitioner”), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the Court is Petitioner’s 

Motion and Declaration for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 9]. In support of his motion, Petitioner

asserts that he requires the assistance of counsel due to the complex nature of the issues presented in his

petition. In support of his motion, Petitioner states that he suffers from a mental impairment and takes

medications that render him “virtually unable” to proceed without counsel. (Petitioner’s Motion, 3.) 

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); Terrovona v.

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984).

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

Case 3:07-cv-01210-BTM-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 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

2 07cv1210-BTM(NLS)

on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 

2254. The Court may also appoint counsel for the “effective utilization of any discovery procedure.” 

Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for counsel “where the issues

involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record.” Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669,

671 (8th Cir. 1993). The Court recognizes that attorneys can be very helpful in narrowing the issues,

eliciting relevant information from the client, highlighting the record, and presenting the court with “a

reasoned analysis of the controlling law.” Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. However, as the court in

Knaubert observed, “unless an evidentiary hearing is held, an attorney’s skill in developing and

presenting new evidence is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on the state court

record alone.” Id. Because a court considering a habeas petition must “inform itself of the relevant

law” and “review the record and render an independent legal conclusion,” it is generally the case that

“the additional assistance provided by attorneys, while significant, is not compelling.” Id. The Ninth

Circuit has also indicated that “[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; see also Knaubert, 791 F.2d at

728-29. 

Here, the Court has not found it necessary at this time to hold an evidentiary hearing, nor has

Petitioner established good cause to conduct discovery. In addition, a review of the petition

demonstrates that despite any alleged intellectual or psychological deficiencies Petitioner has

sufficiently represented himself to date. From the face of the petition and other documents in the

Court’s record, all of which were filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and

the legal issues involved. See, e.g., LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for counsel when the petitioner’s pleadings

indicated “he had a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently

his contentions”). The interests of justice do not compel the appointment of counsel at this time. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01210-BTM-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 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

3 07cv1210-BTM(NLS)

Based on the foregoing, and taking into the account the current procedural posture of this case,

the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not appropriate or justified at this time. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion requesting appointment of counsel [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 13, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01210-BTM-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3