Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00813/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00813-0/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

07cv1823

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD G. ARBERRY,

Petitioner,

v.

F.E. FIGUEROA, Warden,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08-CV-0813-W JMA)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

On May 2, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] On June 4, 2008 (nunc pro tunc to May 27,

2008), Petitioner filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. [Doc. No.

8.] The Court now considers Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint

Counsel and denies the motion without prejudice.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to

federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v.

Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728

(9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas

Case 3:08-cv-00813-W-JMA Document 9 Filed 06/17/08 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

2 07cv1823

petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may

obtain representation whenever the Court “determines that the

interests of justice so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)

(West Supp. 1995); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181

(9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.

1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).

The interests of justice 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; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. A due process

violation may occur in the absence of counsel if the issues

involved are too complex for the petitioner. In addition, the

appointment of counsel may be necessary if the petitioner has

such limited education that he or she is incapable of presenting

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

Cir. 1970).

At this stage of the proceedings, there is no indication

that appointment of counsel is required to prevent a due process

Case 3:08-cv-00813-W-JMA Document 9 Filed 06/17/08 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

3 07cv1823

violation. Neither is there an indication that the issues are

too complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his

claims. Thus, at this time, the Court finds that the interests

of justice do not require the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint is DENIED

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00813-W-JMA Document 9 Filed 06/17/08 Page 3 of 3