Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01037-2/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEOVARDO SALCEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN F. SALAZAR, WARDEN,

Respondent.

Case No. 08cv1037 IEG (PCL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 26)

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner requests the Court appoint counsel to assist him in this case. (Doc. No. 26.) 

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

prisoners. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991 (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481

U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“The right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no

further”); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that there currently exists

no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings); Chaney v. Lewis, 801

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, courts may appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Whether or not to appoint counsel is a matter left to

the court’s discretion, unless an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith,

791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the interests of justice require appointment

of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition). A court’s discretion

to appoint counsel may be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer,

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 45 Filed 08/14/09 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

08 CV 1037 IEG (PCL)

2

 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of

these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id.

(quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s filings thus far, including his Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1), Notice of Application for Equitable and Statutory Tolling (Doc.

No. 3), Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 42) and the numerous Petitions

Petitioner has filed in this matter. Each filing demonstrates Petitioner’s ability to understand the

applicable law and to respond to arguments presented by Respondents. For example, in his

Petition, Petitioner provides a thorough recitation of his habeas claims with corresponding

references to state law and the record. (Doc. No. 1.) Similarly, in his Opposition to

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner cogently summarizes and reasserts his claims. (Doc.

No. 42.) Therefore, based on its review of Petitioner’s filings, the Court finds that Petitioner not

only has a sufficient grasp of his individual claims for habeas relief and the legal issues involved

in those claims, but also is able to articulate those claims adequately without assistance. See

LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s denial of request

for appointment of counsel where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding

of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions”). Moreover, for

the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed concurrently with this Order, there

is minimal likelihood of success based on the expiration of the statute of limitations period prior

to Petitioner’s filing of the instant petition. 

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 45 Filed 08/14/09 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

08 CV 1037 IEG (PCL)

3

Accordingly, the Court finds there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the

appointment of counsel and the Court declines to exercise its authority to do so. Petitioner’s

request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

DATE: August 13, 2009 

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 3:08-cv-01037-IEG-PCL Document 45 Filed 08/14/09 Page 3 of 3