Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07147/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07147-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. ALLDREDGE,

Petitioner,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7147 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 14) 

On October 4, 2006, in the Southern District of California, petitioner, a California

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was transferred to the Northern District on October 31, 2006. 

On January 11, 2007, the petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and on February 16,

2007, petitioner filed an amended petition. On May 14, 2007, the Court found the claims in

the petition, when liberally construed, to be cognizable. Now before the Court is petitioner’s

motion for appointment of counsel, filed May 24, 2007.

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert

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

statute, however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such

person is financially unable to obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

Case 3:06-cv-07147-MMC Document 15 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented. Consequently, the interests of

justice do not require appointment of counsel in the instant case, and the motion for

appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. Should the circumstances change materially at a

later stage of the litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte.

This order terminates Docket No. 14. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 13, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07147-MMC Document 15 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2