Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05400/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05400-1/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)

---

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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400attyden 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY STINER, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. W. ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5400 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket No. 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court ordered Respondent to show cause why

the petition should not be granted. Respondent has filed an answer addressing the merits

of the petition, and Petitioner has filed a traverse. Petitioner also filed a motion for

appointment of counsel. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel (docket no. 4 ) without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

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

Court appoint counsel because the issues are particularly complex, he has limited

educational background, and he believes that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to

**E-filed 7/30/07**

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 8 Filed 07/30/07 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400attyden 2

resolve the claims in this instant petition. See Pet.’s Mot. at 1-2. However, the Sixth

Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v.

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes

appointment of 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), cert. denied, 481 U.S.

1023 (1987); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). 

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

counsel at this time. Petitioner has aptly presented his claims and the petition is now

submitted for the Court’s review. An evidentiary hearing does not appear necessary in

the instant case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no.

4) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will review the merits of the petition in a

separate written order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

7/30/07

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 8 Filed 07/30/07 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400attyden 3

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Larry Stiner

B-19861

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Amber Nicole Wipfler

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 8 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3