Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00608/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00608-1/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

17CV608 GPC (BGS)

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

RAMON DEL RIO,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17CV608 GPC (BGS)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 7]

Petitioner Ramon Del Rio has filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF

No. 7.) Petitioner indicates that he is elderly, suffers from back pain, takes narcotics that 

cloud his thinking, and that he cannot properly present his claim due to the complexity of 

the issues involved. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner’s federal habeas Petition challenges a loss of 

credits and requests that the rules violation that resulted in the credit loss be expunged

and the credits be restored. (ECF No. 1 at 12-13.1) 

As Petitioner’s Request acknowledges, 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. 

 

1 The Court uses the electronic pagination for ease of accurate reference to the record.

Case 3:17-cv-00608-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17CV608 GPC (BGS)

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

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state 

prisoners applying for habeas corpus 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. 

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). The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is 

required. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254. 

 “In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal 

complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner’s ability to 

investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.” Hoggard v. 

Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1994). Courts also consider the clarity and coherence 

of a petitioner’s district court pleadings in determining the necessity of appointment of 

counsel. LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987.) Additionally, “[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.

Here, there is no indication that the issues are particularly complex or that 

Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. The Petition is brief, but articulates the 

basis for Petitioner’s claim that he should not have been found guilty of a rules violation 

or lost credits as a result. Petitioner has also attached numerous exhibits to his Petition in 

support of his claim that the Court will review in considering his Petition. Additionally, it 

does not appear that the Court’s review will extend beyond the state court record, than an 

evidentiary hearing will be required, or that that appointment of counsel is necessary to 

avoid a due process violation. 

Case 3:17-cv-00608-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17CV608 GPC (BGS)

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 Court also notes that “the procedures employed by the federal courts are 

highly protective of a pro se petitioner’s rights. The district court is required to construe 

a pro se petition more liberally than it would construe a petition drafted by counsel.” 

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729 (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) and 

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Court also notes that 

Petitioner will have had more than two months to prepare an opposition to Respondent’s 

Motion to Dismiss when it is due on August 21, 2017.2 

In sum, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. It 

does not appear that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary, the Court’s review will be 

limited to the state court record, and Petitioner appears capable of adequately pursing his 

claim despite the limitations asserted in his Request for Appointment of Counsel. 

Accordingly, the Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2017

 

2 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or Answer was due on July 10, 2017, but Respondent 

filed the Motion to Dismiss early, on June 13, 2017. Petitioner’s deadline to file an 

Opposition remains August 21, 2017.

Case 3:17-cv-00608-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 07/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3