Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02802/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02802-1/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

JOSE YBARRA,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-2802 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 7)

On May 30, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 13, 2007,

the Court ordered respondent to file an answer showing cause why the petition should not be

granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss on

procedural grounds. On October 11, 2007, respondent filed an answer to the petition. 

Petitioner has not filed a traverse. The Court now addresses petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert

v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to

statute, however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such

person is financially unable to obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the petition. Moreover,

the Court anticipates that the exhibits lodged by respondent in support of the answer, which

Case 3:07-cv-02802-MMC Document 15 Filed 01/11/08 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

2

exhibits include the transcript of petitioner’s parole hearing and the excessive state habeas

petitions filed by petitioner in the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court,

will further illuminate the arguments in support of petitioner’s claims. Consequently, the

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the instant case at this time. 

Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will

reconsider this decision sua sponte. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is

hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02802-MMC Document 15 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2