Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01537/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01537-0/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 

18cv1537 H (JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMMY A. CAPPEL,

Petitioner,

v. 

STEVE COX, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1537 H (JMA)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL; and 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for appointment of 

counsel. Normally, only capital prisoners may initiate habeas proceedings by filing a 

motion for appointment of counsel. Calderon (Nicolaus) v. United States District Court, 

98 F.3d 1102, 1107 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[u]nlike non-capital prisoners who 

initiate habeas proceedings by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, capital 

prisoners commence federal habeas proceedings by filing a request for appointment of 

counsel”). Petitioner does not contend she is a capital prisoner, that is, a prisoner under 

sentence of death, and there is nothing in the documents she has submitted which 

indicates that she is a capital prisoner. Nevertheless, because Petitioner has attached the 

habeas corpus petition she filed in the California Supreme Court, it appears Petitioner 

intends to initiate federal habeas corpus proceedings, and thus the Court construes the 

motion for appointment counsel as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Case 3:18-cv-01537-H-JMA Document 2 Filed 08/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1537 H (JMA)

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

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE

A petitioner must pay a $5.00 filing fee or qualify to proceed in forma pauperis in 

order to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner 

has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified 

to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

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); Knaubert v. 

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986); George v. Almager, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 

1178 (S.D. Cal. 2009). 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. 2005); 

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 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 v. Lewis, 801 

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. It appears from the 

documents filed by Petitioner, including the habeas corpus petition she filed in the 

California Supreme Court that she has sufficiently represented herself to date. She has a 

good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such circumstances, a 

district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for 

appointment of counsel as it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See 

Case 3:18-cv-01537-H-JMA Document 2 Filed 08/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1537 H (JMA)

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

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court finds that 

the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel, and Petitioner’s request 

for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED. 

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in 

accordance with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California. See Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the 

Local Rules, the petition must be submitted upon a court-approved form and in 

accordance with the instructions approved by the Court. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel 

and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this 

case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than October 1, 2018: (1) pay the $5.00 filing 

fee or submit adequate proof of her inability to pay the fee; and (2) file a First Amended 

Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The Clerk of Court will 

mail Petitioner a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank First 

Amended Petition form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2018 ______________________________ __________

 Marilyn L. Huff

 United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01537-H-JMA Document 2 Filed 08/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3