Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02492/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02492-3/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 

16cv2492 PCL 

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 

William Thornton, 

Petitioner,

v. 

Raythel Fisher et al., 

Respondents.

Case No.: 16cv2492 PCL 

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL (Doc. 60.) 

 Petitioner requests that this Court appoint counsel to assist him in his habeas case. 

(Doc. 60.) The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas 

corpus actions by state prisoners. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991) 

(citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“The right to appointed counsel 

extends to the first appeal of right, and no further”); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 

(9th Cir. 1996) (noting that there currently exists no constitutional right to appointment of 

counsel in habeas proceedings); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

 However, courts may appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas petitioners 

seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where “the interests of justice so require.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Whether or not to appoint counsel is 

Case 3:16-cv-02492-PCL Document 65 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

16cv2492 PCL 

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

a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the interests 

of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing 

on the petition). 

 A court’s discretion to appoint counsel may be exercised only under “exceptional 

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of 

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the 

merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must 

be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

 Petitioner argues that he is unable to represent herself in habeas proceedings 

because he is untrained in the law and his case is legally complicated. (Doc. 60.) 

However, “[a]ny pro se litigant certainly would be better served with the assistance of 

counsel.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other 

grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)). But a petitioner is only entitled to appointed 

counsel if he can show “that because of the complexity of the claims he [is] unable to 

articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Petitioner has been able to adequately 

articulate his habeas claims in his Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: June 21, 2018 

 

 Peter C. Lewis 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02492-PCL Document 65 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2