Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01400/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01400-5/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-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ALLEN ARNOLD, Civil No. 07CV1400 LAB (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 17)

vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

On January 24, 2008, Petitioner, proceeding pro se on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed a motion for appointment of counsel, citing 18 U.S.C. 3006(a)

and 28 U.S.C. 1959(d). (Doc. No. 17.) The Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s request

for appointment of counsel for the reasons stated below. 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by

state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791

F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986); Hood v. Galaza, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1149 (S.D.Cal. 1999). 

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); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v.

Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 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; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is

Case 3:07-cv-01400-LAB-POR Document 20 Filed 02/01/08 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-

discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791

F.2d at 728. 

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 the Eighth Circuit, “[t]o determine whether appointment of counsel is

required for habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a district 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.”Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir.

1994). Because these factors are useful in determining whether due process requires the

appointment of counsel, they are considered to the extent possible based on the record before the

Court.

At this time, no appointment of counsel is warranted because an evidentiary hearing has not

been granted, nor is counsel needed to prevent a due process violation. From the face of the petition,

filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner understands his case and the legal issues involved. 

Additionally, Petitioner has plead sufficiently for an enlargement of time to oppose Respondent’s

motion to dismiss. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that the “interests of

justice” do not require the appointment of counsel. If an evidentiary hearing is required, Rule 8(c)

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed to a petitioner who

qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see Wood v.

Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1979). In addition, the Court may appoint counsel for the

effective utilization of any discovery process. Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. For the abovestated reasons, the “interests of justice” in this matter do not compel the appointment of counsel at

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01400-LAB-POR Document 20 Filed 02/01/08 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-

 this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

DATED: February 1, 2008

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01400-LAB-POR Document 20 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 3