Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01229/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01229-0/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 07cv1229 W (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID UPTON,

Petitioner,

v.

EDMUND BROWN, Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07cv1229 W (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 6]

Petitioner David Upton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition contesting his

confinement. On July 11, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but

dismissed the case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to name a proper respondent and failed to

allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. [Doc. No. 4.] Petitioner has not yet re-filed his petition, but

seeks to appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 6.] He argues that the Court should appoint counsel because (1) as

explained in his declaration to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner has less than ten dollars in his

prison trust account; and (2) according to Exhibit A to the motion, Petitioner would apparently like the

assistance of counsel in exhausting his state court remedies. The Court has considered Petitioner’s

request and DENIES without prejudice his motion to appoint counsel.

Right to Counsel.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state

prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). But financially eligible habeas

petitioners may obtain counsel whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so require.’” 

Case 3:07-cv-01229-W-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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 07cv1229 W (NLS)

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990).

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. When no evidentiary

hearing is necessary, appointment of counsel is discretionary. Id. In the Ninth Circuit, indigent

prisoners are not entitled to appointed counsel unless counsel is necessary to prevent due process

violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29.

Here, Petitioner appears to seek the assistance of counsel in exhausting his state court remedies. 

First, this Court will not appoint counsel to do work in the state court. Second, at this point the issues in

the petition do not appear so complex such that Petitioner cannot litigate them. Under these

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

appointment of counsel. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

Petitions Filed by Pro Se Litigants.

Federal courts highly protect a pro se petitioner’s rights. Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729 (citation

omitted). The court must construe a pro se petition more liberally than a petition drafted by counsel. Id.

It must also “scrutinize the state court record independently to determine whether the state court

procedures and findings were sufficient.” Id. Even if the court accepts a state court’s factual findings, it

must draw its own legal conclusion regarding the legality of the incarceration. Id. The appellate court

will review the district court’s conclusion de novo. Id. 

The Court acknowledges that counsel can provide valuable assistance: “An attorney may narrow

the issues and elicit relevant information from his or her client. An attorney may highlight the record

and present to the court a reasoned analysis of the controlling law.” Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. The

Court, however, also notes that “unless an evidentiary hearing is held, an attorney’s skill in developing

and presenting new evidence is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on the state court

record alone.” Id.

This Court will review the state court record independently, draw its own legal conclusion and

inform itself of the relevant law. Therefore, the additional assistance counsel could provide in this case,

while significant, is not compelling. The Court finds that Petitioner, at this point, is capable to litigate

the claims in his habeas petition.

Case 3:07-cv-01229-W-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 07cv1229 W (NLS)

Here, the “interests of justice” do not compel the appointment of counsel. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 10, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01229-W-NLS Document 7 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3