Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05806/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05806-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICK J. GARDUNO,

Petitioner,

vs.

GAIL LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5806 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION SEEKING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket no. 51)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at California 

State Prison-Corcoran in Corcoran, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state

conviction. On March 22, 2007, this Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss

claims two, three and four in the petition as untimely (docket no. 49). The Court also

reinstated an earlier order for Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted (docket no. 29). On April 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion seeking

appointment of counsel based on the fact that he is without counsel and that access to the

prison law library is limited. Petitioner contends that the Court must provide counsel to

an indigent prisoner who requests it. 

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

Case 3:02-cv-05806-JSW Document 52 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 2
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

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.

 Here, no evidentiary hearing appears necessary at this time. The Court concludes

that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 51) is DENIED

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge 

Case 3:02-cv-05806-JSW Document 52 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2