Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00496/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00496-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL—No. C-06-00496 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 8/23/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUIS DUENES MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE EVANS, Warden, 

Respondent.

No. C-06-00496 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Re Docket No. 9]

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 11, 2006, the court ordered respondent to show cause

why the petition should not be granted. Petitioner submits an ex parte request for an order for nunc

pro tunc appointment of William M. Robinson from the Sixth District Appellate Program as counsel

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Robinson prepared petitioner's habeas petition on a pro

bono basis, appeared in this case on February 16, 2007 and has now filed a traverse on petitioner's

behalf. Respondents have not opposed petitioner's request.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). However,

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

petitioner when "the court determines that the interests of justice so require . . . ." See also 28

Case 5:06-cv-00496-RMW Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL—No. C-06-00496 RMW

MAG 2

U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Rule 8(c), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Appointment of counsel is required

where an evidentiary hearing must be held, but where one is not mandated the decision to appoint

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

U.S. 1023 (1987). The court must appoint counsel where the complexities of the case are such that

denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process. Brown v. United States, 623 F.2d 54, 61

(9th Cir. 1980). 

The court finds this action sufficiently complex and meritorious to warrant the requested

appointment of counsel. Petitioner alleges that the denial of presentence and post-conviction time

credits pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 2933.1 for crimes committed before the effective date of §

2933.1 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10, cl. 1) and that the state court's

determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law. This presents

a complex constitutional issue on which the petitioner has some likelihood of success and

with which he may legitimately require counsel's assistance to articulate. See Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the court hereby appoints William M.

Robinson as counsel for petitioner. Mr. Robinson, a staff attorney with the Sixth District

Appellate Program, represented petitioner in state court, prepared petitioner's federal habeas

petition pro bono and is familiar with petitioner's case.

Counsel may seek payment for his representation of petitioner as provided in 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(d) and (e) and General Order No. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act Plan for the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, IV-D ("Discretionary

Appointments"). 

 III. ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's ex parte motion for nunc pro tunc appointment

of counsel is granted.

DATED: 8/22/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00496-RMW Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL—No. C-06-00496 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

William M. Robinson bill@sdap.org

Counsel for Defendants:

Amy Haddix amy.haddix@doj.ca.gov

Peggy S. Ruffra peggy.ruffra@doj.ca.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 8/23/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00496-RMW Document 14 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3