Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00249/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00249-0/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

- 1 - 12cv249-AJB (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSS SHANY IVY, Civil No. 12-cv-0249-AJB (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 3]

v.

MATTHEW L. CATE; KAMALA D.

HARRIS,

Respondents.

On January 30, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner requests counsel be appointed so that his “interests

may be protected by the professional assistance required.” Id. at 1. “Due to the special issues and

complexities of petitioners [sic] case, where the victim had 3 substantial causes of death which make

it unusual[,] counsel is required in the interest of justice to achieve due process.” Id. Further,

Petitioner states he suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder and has a psychiatric history. Id.

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 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).

Case 3:12-cv-00249-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 02/07/12 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 - 12cv249-AJB (POR)

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).

"The procedures employed by the federal courts are highly protective of a pro se petitioner's

rights. The district court is required to construe a pro se petition more liberally than it would

construe a petition drafted by counsel." Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729 (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se complaint to less stringent standard) (per curiam)); Bashor, 730

F.2d at 1234. 

Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to assist him in his current Petition for habeas

corpus. Petitioner, however, has sufficiently represented himself to date. From the face of the

Petition, filed pro se, as well as the Motion for Appointment of Counsel itself, it appears Petitioner

has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Accordingly, at this stage of the

proceedings, the Court finds the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. 

Based thereon, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 7, 2012

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00249-AJB-DHB Document 5 Filed 02/07/12 Page 2 of 2