Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00439/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00439-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

- 1 - 07CV0439 BEN (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL CARRERA-VIRULA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV0439 BEN (AJB)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

vs.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Respondents

On March 8, 2007, Petitioner Daniel Carrera-Virula (“Petitioner”) proceeding pro se filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner now seeks appointment

of counsel. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

There is no “constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas corpus.” McCleskey v. Zant, 499

U.S. 467, 495 (1991); see also, Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“[T]he right to

appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further”). But “Section 3006A(g)

provides that counsel may be appointed for an impoverished habeas petitioner whenever ‘the court

determines that the interests of justice so require’. . . .” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th

Cir. 1984), quoting, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“The district court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigents when it determines that the interests

of justice so require.”). To decide whether these exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must

Case 3:07-cv-00439-BEN-AJB Document 5 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 07CV0439 BEN (AJB)

evaluate both “‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ ” Id. (Citations omitted); see

also, Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994) (The Court “should consider the legal

complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner’s ability to investigate and

present his claim, and any other relevant factors.”). Petitioner has offered no argument regarding the

requisite likelihood of success. (See, generally Motion.) See also, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525

(Denying request for appointment of counsel because, in part, plaintiff “offered no argument to the

effect that he had any requisite likelihood of success.”). Moreover, the issues presented in the case

do not warrant an evidentiary hearing and will be properly decided on the administrative records

alone. Similarly, Petitioner has not “show[n] that because of the complexity of the claims he

was unable to articulate his positions.” Id; see also, id (Plaintiff “must show that because of the

complexity of the claims he was unable to articulate his positions.”). He merely claims he has no

knowledge or education in the legal proceedings. But, judging from the Petition, filed pro se,

Petitioner seems to have a good grasp of his case and the legal issues involved. See, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (“LaMere’s district court pleadings illustrate to us that he

had a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his

contentions.”) Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment counsel is DENIED without

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

cc: All parties and respective counsel 

Case 3:07-cv-00439-BEN-AJB Document 5 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2