Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01682/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01682-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, Civil No. 12cv1682-BEN (DHB)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[ECF No. 9]

v.

TIM V. VIRGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, Francisco Hernandez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested

appointment of counsel to pursue his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. [EFC No. 9.] The 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. 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) (2010); 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).

- 1 - 11cv2418-JAH (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01682-BEN-DHB Document 14 Filed 10/30/12 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

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;

Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no

evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. If

the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary in the future, the Court will

require appointment of counsel at that time.

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. The Ninth Circuit considers the clarity and coherence of a petitioner’s district court

pleadings to determine the necessity of appointment of counsel; if clear and understandable, the

court typically finds appointment of counsel unnecessary. LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626

(9th Cir. 1987.) Further, the Ninth Circuit notes that “[w]here the issues involved can be

properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district court does not abuse its

discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel.” Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.

At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is required

to prevent a due process violation. There is no indication that the issues are too complex or that

Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. From the face of the Petition, filed pro se, it

appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. He has also

been able to articulate the factual and legal bases of his claim in a clear and coherent manner. 

Indeed, Petitioner has been successful in getting a Petition on file, filing a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and filing the instant motion. Moreover, the Petition in this case was

pleaded sufficiently to warrant this Court’s order directing Respondent to file an answer or other

responsive pleading to the Petition. Finally, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve

the issues involved on the basis of the state court record. Therefore, the Court finds that the

interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. 

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 11cv2418-JAH (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01682-BEN-DHB Document 14 Filed 10/30/12 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

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2012,

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 11cv2418-JAH (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01682-BEN-DHB Document 14 Filed 10/30/12 Page 3 of 3