Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02330/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02330-0/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

R’MON HOWARD ANDERSON

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY ALLISON, WARDEN

Respondent.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-CV-2330-LAB-(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[DOC. NO. 21]

Presently before the court is a Motion for Appointment of Counsel that was filed

by Petitioner R’mon Howard Anderson (hereinafter “Petitioner”). [Doc. No. 21.] For the

reasons set forth below, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion 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) (West Supp. 1995);

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

11cv2330

Case 3:11-cv-02330-LAB-JMA Document 23 Filed 10/09/12 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

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©, 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).

Petitioner, who is incarcerated, contends counsel should be appointed on his

behalf because: 1) he has limited access to the prison law library, which he estimates

he “might make it to... maybe once a month” [Doc. No. 21., p. 3]; and 2) the prison

where he is housed has “a strict policy on how much personal property an inmate is

allowed to have in his living quarters,” so Petitioner is temporarily without access to his

trial record [Id., p. 4]. He states that he is “in the process of obtaining access to the

record again, but this is a timely process.” [Id.] These circumstances do not suggest

that appointment of counsel is required to prevent a due process violation. Nor is there

any 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. 

/ /

/ /

11cv2330

2

Case 3:11-cv-02330-LAB-JMA Document 23 Filed 10/09/12 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 9, 2012

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

11cv2330

3

Case 3:11-cv-02330-LAB-JMA Document 23 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 3