Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00190/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00190-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CECIL THORTON,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL STRAINER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-190-LAB(JMA)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. 22]

On January 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. 1]. On July 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for

the Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. 7]. The Court has considered and denies

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice for the reasons stated

below.

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) (West Supp. 1995);

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

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 8 Filed 08/02/11 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

2

F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).

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; Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. § 

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; Abdullah, 18 F.3d

at 573. Here, there is no current indication that an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

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. A due process violation may occur in the

absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. In addition,

the appointment of counsel may be necessary if the petitioner has such limited

education that he or she is incapable of presenting his or her claims. Hawkins v.

Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970).

At this stage of the proceedings, there is no indication that appointment of

counsel is required to prevent a due process violation. Neither is there an indication

that the issues are too complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. 

Thus, at this time, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the

appointment of counsel.

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

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 2, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00190-LAB-JMA Document 8 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 2