Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02460/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02460-1/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

16cv2460-AJB(JMA)

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

LARRY HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND LEORA, Sheriff, 

Imperial County,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2460-AJB(JMA)

ORDER DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[DOC. NO. 25] & RESETTING 

DEADLINE FOR PETITIONER 

TO FILE TRAVERSE

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel that is currently 

pending before the Court. [Doc. No. 25.] Petitioner requests counsel be 

appointed for him because he cannot afford to hire an attorney and he does “not 

know or understand the process that is occurring.” [Doc. No.7, p. 37 of 38; Doc. 

No. 25, p. 1 of 2.] He states, “I got found incompetent to stand trial. I still am.” 

[Doc. No. 25, p. 1 of 2.] Petitioner contends the Court should conduct an 

evidentiary hearing regarding his mental competency. [Id.] Petitioner does not 

submit a declaration under penalty of perjury in support of his motion, nor does

he attach any documentation to support the granting of the appointment.

On April 11, 2017, the Court issued an order informing Petitioner he had 

not made specific allegations or submitted “substantial evidence” of 

Case 3:16-cv-02460-AJB-LL Document 40 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16cv2460-AJB(JMA)

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

incompetence, which is required to warrant the Court conducting a competency 

hearing. [Doc. No. 31, p. 2, applying Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 

2005)] Ordinarily under these circumstances a motion for appointment of counsel 

would be denied, but because Respondent had previously informed the Court the 

Imperial County Superior Court remanded Petitioner to Atascadero State 

Hospital in November 2016, for evaluation of his mental competence in 

connection with sentencing proceedings, the Court informed Petitioner of the 

shortcomings of his motion for appointment of counsel and ordered he 

supplement the record. [Id., p. 3; See also Doc. No. 17, Ex. A; Doc. No. 31.]

Respondent was also given a deadline to respond to Petitioner’s supplemental 

filing. 

Petitioner’s April 25, 2017 deadline to file his Additional Evidence of 

Current Incompetence has since passed and no supplemental filing from him has 

been received by the Court. Respondent, however, has submitted briefing and a 

report by Atascadero State Hospital regarding the evaluation of Petitioner’s 

mental health that was prepared at the direction of Imperial County Superior 

Court. [Doc. No. 39 and 36.] 

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

corpus actions by state prisoners. McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); 

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert denied, 481 U.S. 

1023 (1987); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. 

denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, 

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

may obtain representation whenever a magistrate judge or the district court 

“determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), 

(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. 

denied, 499 U.S. 979 (1991).

/ /

Case 3:16-cv-02460-AJB-LL Document 40 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16cv2460-AJB(JMA)

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 can also 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); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ninth Circuit precedent mandates that when 

a petitioner submits “substantial evidence” of his incompetence, the District Court 

should hold a competency hearing to determine whether a petitioner is 

“competent under an appropriate standard for habeas petitioners.” Allen, 408 

F.3d at 1153-54. Here, despite having multiple opportunities to do so, Petitioner 

has not submitted any evidence of his incompetence. In fact, the only evidence of 

Petitioner’s mental competency are the records from Atascadero State Hospital’s 

evaluation of Petitioner’s mental health. The thirteen page Atascadero State 

Hospital report, which was prepared on December 30, 2016, and accompanying 

Certification of Mental Competency, which were filed with the Imperial County 

Superior Court, document the 90 day evaluation of Respondent and conclude he 

is competent to stand trial. [Doc. No. 38.] Thus, there is no indication that an 

evidentiary hearing is necessary.

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. 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. A due process violation may 

occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the 

petitioner. Id. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be necessary if the 

petitioner is of such limited education as to be incapable of presenting his claims. 

Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). When the issues 

involved in a section 2254 habeas action can be properly resolved on the basis 

of the state court record, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a 

Case 3:16-cv-02460-AJB-LL Document 40 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16cv2460-AJB(JMA)

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

motion for appointment of counsel. Travis v. Lockhart, 787 F.2d 409, 411 (8th 

Cir. 1986). 

In the instant case, Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. 

It appears he has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. The 

First Amended Petition was pled sufficiently to warrant this Court’s issuance of 

an Order to Respond, which directed Respondent to file an Answer or other 

responsive pleading. [Doc. No. 8.]

Furthermore, the issues raised in the First Amended Petition are not 

complex. The First Amended Petition raises a single claim, which was 

addressed by the California courts in the direct appeal process. Respondent 

has provided the Court with the state court records relevant to the determination 

of the issues presented. [Doc. No. 16.] At this stage of the proceedings, 

therefore, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues 

presented on the basis of the state court record. Under such circumstances, a 

district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request 

for appointment of counsel because it is simply not warranted by the interests of 

justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, (9th Cir. 1987). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not 

require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel is, therefore, DENIED

As the Court previously indicated when it granted Petitioner’s motion for 

extension of time to file his Traverse, the deadline for Petitioner to file his 

Traverse would be reset by the Court after a determination was made regarding 

whether a competency hearing should be held. As the Court has concluded a

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:16-cv-02460-AJB-LL Document 40 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16cv2460-AJB(JMA)

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

competency hearing is not warranted, the deadline for Petitioner to file a 

Traverse is hereby reset for July 7, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02460-AJB-LL Document 40 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5