Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02202/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02202-0/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

TRENTON QUINTEN CROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.M. GONZALES, Warden, et al.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13CV2202-H(JMA)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 3]

Petitioner Trenton Quinten Cross, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, has requested appointment of counsel to pursue his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner attacks his conviction for possession and sale of a controlled

substance (Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 11352(a), § 11351.5) on the grounds

the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior narcotics sale in

violation of his right to due process. For the reasons set forth below,

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal

habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467,

495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert

00CV900W

Case 3:13-cv-02202-BAS-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728

(9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Under 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B), however, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever a

magistrate judge or the district court “determines that the interests of justice

so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), (a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe,

912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 979 (1991).

The interests of justice can also 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. § 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. A due process violation

may occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex

for the petitioner. Id. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be

necessary if the petitioner is of such limited education as to be incapable of

presenting his claims. Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir.

1970). When the issues involved in a section 2254 habeas action can be

properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district court

does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for appointment of

counsel. Travis v. Lockhart, 787 F.2d 409, 411 (8th Cir. 1986). 

In the instant case, Petitioner requests counsel be appointed on his

2 00CV900W

Case 3:13-cv-02202-BAS-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 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

behalf because the legal issues are complex and he is “a layman at law

with no skills to research, compare, argue and respond properly to any

pleadings the court may require.” [Doc. No. 3.] Petitioner has sufficiently

represented himself to date. Upon review of the petition, it appears that

Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. The

petition in this case was pleaded sufficiently to warrant this Court’s

issuance of an Order to Respond, which directed Respondent to file an

answer or other responsive pleading. 

“The district court must scrutinize the state court record

independently to determine whether the state court procedures and

findings were sufficient.” Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. Respondent has

provided the Court with the state court records relevant to the

determination of the issues presented. [Doc. No. 12.] At this stage of the

proceedings, it appears that the Court will be able to properly resolve the

issues presented on the basis of the state court record.Under such

circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a

state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel because it is simply not

warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622,

(9th Cir. 1987). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the interests of justice do

not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel is, therefore, DENIED without prejudice.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 7, 2014

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

3 00CV900W

Case 3:13-cv-02202-BAS-JMA Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 3