Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02448/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02448-0/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

15CV2448 MMA (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORTEZ LAMON WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 15CV2448 MMA (BGS)

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF Nos. 30, 33]

Petitioner Cortez Lamon Washington has filed two Requests for Appointment of 

Counsel. (ECF Nos. 30, 33.) They are identical except for the different signature dates 

reflected. Petitioner indicates in each that he is indigent and unable to afford counsel. 

Petitioner’s federal habeas Petition asserts claims relate to whether a prior conviction 

should have qualified as a strike and ineffective assistance of counsel. 

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). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas 

corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular 

Case 3:15-cv-02448-MMA-BGS Document 36 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15CV2448 MMA (BGS)

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

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. 

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); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th 

Cir. 1990). The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is 

required. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254. 

“In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal complexity 

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

and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.” Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 

F.3d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1994). Courts also consider the clarity and coherence of a 

petitioner’s district court pleadings in determining the necessity of appointment of 

counsel. LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987.) Additionally, “[w]here the 

issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district 

court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel.” 

Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.

Here, there is no indication that the issues are particularly complex or that 

Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. The Petition is clear and articulates the 

basis for Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner has also attached numerous exhibits to his 

Petition in support of his claims that the Court will review in considering his Petition. 

Additionally, it does not appear that the Court’s review will extend beyond the state court 

record, that an evidentiary hearing will be required, or that that appointment of counsel is 

necessary to avoid a due process violation. 

The Court also notes that “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) and 

Case 3:15-cv-02448-MMA-BGS Document 36 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15CV2448 MMA (BGS)

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

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Court also notes that 

Respondent filed his Response to the Petition early, on June 19, 2019, and Petitioner’s 

traverse is not due until August 12, 2019, giving Petitioner more than seven weeks to 

prepare his traverse. 

In sum, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. It 

does not appear that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary, the Court’s review will be 

limited to the state court record, and Petitioner appears capable of adequately pursing his 

claims. Accordingly, both Requests for Appointment of Counsel are DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2019

Case 3:15-cv-02448-MMA-BGS Document 36 Filed 06/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3