Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00450-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Clarence Wayne Fuller,

Petitioner,

vs.

D.L. Runnels, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

No. Civ. S 05-0450 FCD PAN P

Order

-oOoPetitioner requests appointment of counsel on the grounds he

is indigent and lacks legal training and the law is complex. 

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir.

1996). However, whenever the court determines the interests of

justice so require, representation may be provided for any

financially eligible person who is seeking relief under section 18

U.S.C. § 2254. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Unless an evidentiary

Case 2:05-cv-00450-FCD-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/09/05 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

2

hearing is necessary, the decision to appoint counsel is

discretionary. Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases. 

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability to

present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v. Look,

718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v. Risley, 827

F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the presumption of

regularity in the state’s procedures for confining prisoners

suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against appointment

of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir.

1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint counsel

unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact and law.

Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the court will

not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the material facts

are within the petitioner’s possession, viz., they do not require

investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at 887-88. 

Here, petitioner alleges the jury improperly was instructed,

counsel was ineffective and his sentence is cruel and unusual. The

law governing these issues is settled. Neither factual development

nor legal insight are required because these proceedings are

limited to claims that already were identified and presented to the

California Supreme Court. There is, on the record before the

court, no reason to believe appointment of counsel would be of

Case 2:05-cv-00450-FCD-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/09/05 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

3

significant benefit. 

Petitioner’s March 7, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied.

Dated: August 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00450-FCD-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 3