Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00791/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00791-1/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

07cv0791-JM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY DON EVANS,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary; V.M.

Almager, Warden,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv0791-JM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[DOC. NO. 23]

On February 21, 2008, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed the Application for Appointment of Counsel currently before

the Court. Doc. No. 23. This is his second such application, and both

are virtually identical, except the instant application is supplemented

with letters describing a March 2007 riot in Petitioner’s prison, and

subsequent remedial measures. Id.; Doc. No. 7. In both, Petitioner

contends that he requires appointed counsel because he is unskilled in

the law, is incapable of responding to the sophisticated legal arguments

to be presented by Respondents, and has limited access to the prison law

library due to “perpetual” prison lockdowns. Id. For these reasons,

Petitioner maintains that without the assistance of appointed counsel,

he will be unable to pursue successfully his claims for federal habeas

Case 3:07-cv-00791-JM-BLM Document 24 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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 07cv0791-JM (BLM)

relief. Id.

Having considered the request submitted by Petitioner and the

applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s

Application 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. See McClesky v. Zant, 499

U.S. 467, 495 (1991); 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 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 the 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 1238, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1986)).

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s filings thus far, including his

Case 3:07-cv-00791-JM-BLM Document 24 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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 07cv0791-JM (BLM)

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 1, motion to file a first

amended petition, Doc. No. 15, and both Applications for Appointment of

Counsel, Doc. Nos. 7 & 23. Each filing belies Petitioner’s claims of an

inability to understand the applicable law and to respond to arguments

presented by Respondents. For example, in his Petition, Petitioner

provides a thorough recitation of his habeas claims with corresponding

references to the state court record. Doc. No. 1. Similarly, in the

both requests for appointed counsel, Petitioner appropriately cites

multiple federal cases and applies these authorities in a clear and

cogent manner. Doc. Nos. 7 & 23. 

Thus, based on its review of Petitioner’s filings, the Court finds

that Petitioner not only has a sufficient grasp of his individual claims

for habeas relief and the legal issues involved in those claims, but

also is able to articulate those claims adequately without assistance.

See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming

district court’s denial of request for appointment of counsel where

pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding of the

issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his

contentions”). Letters describing the March 2007 prison riot and

subsequent potentially limited access to the law library, Doc. No. 7, do

not alter the Court’s opinion in this respect. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00791-JM-BLM Document 24 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4 07cv0791-JM (BLM)

The Court also finds that while Petitioner has asserted sufficient

facts to state claims for federal habeas relief, he has not established

a likelihood of success on the merits. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that this habeas

proceeding does not present “exceptional circumstances” justifying the

appointment of legal counsel. Id. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

Application for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00791-JM-BLM Document 24 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 4