Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01264/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01264-0/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)

---

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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Sanctions Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.05\Thompson264denatty.wpd

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTWION E. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

 D. L. RUNNEL, 

Respondent. /

No. C 05-1264 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINT OF COUNSEL;

DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Docket Nos. 35, 39)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion for

sanctions. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no.

35) and Petitioner’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 39) without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner moves the Court for appointment of counsel. Petitioner requests that the

Court appoint counsel because he is indigent. Petitioner claims that he is incapable of

representing himself based upon his ignorance of the law and the legal system. Petitioner

Case 5:05-cv-01264-JF Document 40 Filed 03/21/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Sanctions Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.05\Thompson264denatty.wpd 2

maintains that he is entitled to counsel on appeal under the Sixth Amendment. See Pet.’s

Mot. at 1-2. However, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas

corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, authorizes a district court 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. The decision to

appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228,

1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather

than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex

procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or

mentally or physically impaired Petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of

experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which Petitioner is in no

position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J.

Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d

ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney,

801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel

at this time. Petitioner has aptly presented his claims so far and the petition is now submitted

for the Court’s review. This is not an exceptional case that would warrant representation on

federal habeas review, as an evidentiary hearing does not appear necessary in the instant

case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 35) is

DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte reconsideration should

the Court find that an evidentiary hearing is necessary upon review of the merits of

Petitioner’s claims. The Court will review the merits of the petition in a separate written

order.

Case 5:05-cv-01264-JF Document 40 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Motion for Sanctions Without Prejudice

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.05\Thompson264denatty.wpd 3

B. Motion for Sanctions

Petitioner moves the court for sanctions against High Dessert State Prison personnel

due to the loss of his legal property, harassment and retaliation. The Court notes that it

cannot grant a motion for sanctions or take action against the prison staff, as they are not

parties to the present habeas action. Petitioner may choose to proceed with a prison

administrative grievance in order to address his complaints of the loss of legal property,

harassment, and retaliation. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 39) is

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/17/08 ___________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01264-JF Document 40 Filed 03/21/08 Page 3 of 3