Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00189/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00189-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY D. SWANEGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

Case No. 11cv0189 JLS (PCL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. 7)

Petitioner Anthony D. Swanegan, 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. The request for appointment of counsel is denied.

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). 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); Bashor v. Risley,

Case 3:11-cv-00189-JLS-PCL Document 15 Filed 08/23/11 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

11CV0189 JLS(PCL)

2

730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, such a

determination is within the discretion of the district court. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

728 (9th Cir. 1986) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986).

The purpose of § 3006A is to provide for appointed counsel whenever required by the

Constitution. Id. Thus, indigent 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 v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.

1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). Due Process may require counsel to be appointed where

the factual and legal issues involved are too complex for the petitioner Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29,

or if the petitioner is of such limited education as to be incapable of presenting his claims. See

Wiley v. Ingle, 1998 WL 470482 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (unrep.) (citing Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F2d 948

(8th Cir. 1970). Where a petitioner’s pleadings illustrate the petitioner is able to understand the

issues and present coherent claims to the court, appointment of counsel is not necessary to prevent

Due Process violations. Hood v. Galaza, 47 F.Supp. 2d 1144, 1149 (S.D. Cal. 1999); and see

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 627 (9th Cir. 1987). 

This Court has weighed these Due Process factors as well as Swanegan’s contentions he is

entitled to appointed counsel because he will soon be transferred from federal to state custody where

he anticipates losing access to any prison library while housed in the state prison’s reception yard,

that his anticipated transfer to state custody will likely cause him to miss filing deadlines, and that,

because he is a layperson, he is unable to prosecute his Petition without the aid of a “jailhouse

lawyer,” who has been assisting him thus far. (Doc. 7, at 1-2.) 

Swanegan is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, see Cullen v. Pinholster, ___U.S.___,___;

131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011), therefore he will only be entitled to appointed counsel to prevent Due

Process violations. Swanegan’s pleadings demonstrate that he is capable of clearly articulating his

claims to the court, and that he has a good grasp of the factual and legal bases for his claims. In his

Petition, Swanegan cites the legal elements of his claim as well as supporting facts. (Doc. 4, at 6.)

He filed a concurrent memorandum of points and authorities, which is organized and cites relevant

legal authority. (Doc.4-1.) Moreover, Swanegan’s anticipated difficulties are speculative. This

Case 3:11-cv-00189-JLS-PCL Document 15 Filed 08/23/11 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

11CV0189 JLS(PCL)

3

Court cannot discern that the factual or legal issues are too complex for Swanegan nor that he is of

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

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.

DATE: August 23, 2011 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 3:11-cv-00189-JLS-PCL Document 15 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 3