Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02817/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02817-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY DOMINIC MABON, Jr.,

Petitioner,

 v.

JOHN W. HARVEY,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 09-2817 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 9)

Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. On December 8, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause to respondent as to

why the petition should not be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES

petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 9) without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to protect his interest in this case. 

However, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 

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

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

petitioner if “the court determines that the interests of justice so require,” the courts have

made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule. Appointment is mandatory

*E-FILED - 3/24/10*

Case 5:09-cv-02817-RMW Document 13 Filed 03/24/10 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

Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Mabon817.Atty.wpd 2

only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary

to prevent due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.

1986).

Petitioner has thus far been able to adequately present his claims for relief. 

Respondent has been ordered to produce the state record, which may include petitioner’s

state appellate briefs prepared by counsel. No evidentiary hearing appears necessary in this

case, nor are any other extraordinary circumstances apparent. Accordingly, the court

concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel (docket no. 9) is DENIED without prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

3/23/10

Case 5:09-cv-02817-RMW Document 13 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2