Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07116/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07116-1/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)

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RANDY ALANA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MICHAEL MARTEL, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 18-07116 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 9) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction in Alameda County 

Superior Court. On March 28, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause directing 

Respondent to file an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be 

issued. (Docket No. 8.) 

Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 

9.) 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.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). 

Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the 

discretion of the district court. See Id. at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). An evidentiary hearing does not appear necessary 

Case 5:18-cv-07116-BLF Document 10 Filed 04/23/19 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

at this time, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, (Docket No. 9), is DENIED

without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte reconsideration should the Court later find an 

evidentiary hearing necessary following consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claims. 

This order terminates Docket No. 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Denying Mot. for Appointment of Counsel 

PRO-SE\BLF\HC.18\07116Alana_deny-atty 

Case 5:18-cv-07116-BLF Document 10 Filed 04/23/19 Page 2 of 2