Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00361/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00361-1/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

1 07cv361 LAB (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC E. QUINTON,

Petitioner,

v.

(WARDEN) I. CLAY, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv361 LAB (WMc)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Petitioner, 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. [Doc. No.

3] 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); 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. 2005); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181

(9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29

F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).

Case 3:07-cv-00361-LAB-WMC Document 8 Filed 03/29/07 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

2 07cv361 LAB (WMc)

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. foll. § 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.

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).

In the Eighth Circuit, “[t]o determine whether appointment of counsel is required for

habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a district court should consider the legal complexity

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

his claim, and any other relevant factors.” Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d at 573 (citing Battle v.

Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990)); Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471; Boyd v. Groose, 4

F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1993); Smith v. Groose, 998 F.2d 1439, 1442 (8th Cir. 1993); Johnson v.

Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986).

Because these factors are useful in determining whether due process requires the

appointment of counsel, they are considered to the extent possible based on the record before the

Court. Here, Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date by filing a comprehensive

Petition. [Doc. No. 1.] From the face of the petition, filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a

good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such circumstances, a district court

does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel as it

is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

Cir. 1987). At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do

not require the appointment of counsel.

Case 3:07-cv-00361-LAB-WMC Document 8 Filed 03/29/07 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

3 07cv361 LAB (WMc)

For the above-stated reasons, the “interests of justice” in this matter do not compel the

appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of

counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Copy to:

HONORABLE LARRY A. BURNS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

PRISONER PRO SE

Case 3:07-cv-00361-LAB-WMC Document 8 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3