Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00993/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00993-0/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

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 - 09cv993-WQH (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ, Civil No. 09-cv-0993-WQH (POR)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Document No. 17]

v.

LARRY SMALL, Warden,

Respondent.

On August 24, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) Petitioner contends he is “indigent and unable to afford to retain

his own counsel,” and asserts he is not “trained for legal matters.” Id. at 1-2. 

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). 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) (West Supp. 1995); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990);

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984).

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

Case 3:09-cv-00993-WQH-POR Document 18 Filed 10/27/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09cv993-WQH (POR)

complex for the petitioner. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be necessary if the

petitioner has such limited education that he or she is incapable of presenting his or her claims. 

Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970).

"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) (holding pro se complaint to less stringent standard) (per curiam)); Bashor, 730

F.2d at 1234. 

Petitioner requests appointment of counsel to assist him in his current Petition for habeas

corpus. (Doc. 1) Petitioner, however, has sufficiently represented himself to date. From the face of

the Petition, filed pro se, it appears Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues

involved. (Doc. 1, Ex. A). The Petition in this case was pleaded sufficiently to warrant this Court's

order directing Respondent to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Petition. (Doc. 7.) 

Further, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on August 27, 2009. 

(Doc. 16.) Accordingly, because further briefing is not required of Petitioner at this time, his claim

that he needs counsel is without merit. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds the interests

of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. 

Based thereon, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel

is hereby DENIED without prejudice. (Doc. 17.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2009

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable William Q. Hayes

all parties

Case 3:09-cv-00993-WQH-POR Document 18 Filed 10/27/09 Page 2 of 2