Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03103/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03103-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY ROBERTSON,

Petitioner, No. C 05-3103 PJH

v.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

D.L RUNNELS, Warden, FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Quincy Robertson (“Robertson”), a state prisoner, seeks federal habeas

corpus relief, raising two claims: (1) that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to jury

trial and his due process rights when the trial court allowed the jury to return a guilty verdict

based on the second degree felony murder theory; and (2) that his Fifth Amendment rights

were violated when the trial court denied his motion to suppress his confession. Robertson

filed a motion for appointment of counsel with this court on September 17, 2005. 

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner

whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Generally, the

decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis,

801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The purpose of section 3006A is to provide for

appointed counsel whenever the failure to do so would amount to a denial of due process. Id.

Accordingly, in determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should weigh the

ability of a pro se petitioner to present forcefully and coherently his or her contentions based

on a good understanding of the issues. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.

1987). 

Case 4:05-cv-03103-PJH Document 13 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The court finds that the claims raised in the present petition are not complex. 

Additionally, the court is unable to determine, at this time, whether petitioner can adequately

represent himself, as an attorney drafted his petition. Because of the foregoing and the fact

that the court finds the present petition to satisfactorily advance petitioner’s claims for relief,

the court DENIES the request for appointment of counsel nunc pro tunc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03103-PJH Document 13 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2