Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00797/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00797-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Patrick William Banks,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0797 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Mark Shepherd, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner requests appointment of counsel on the grounds he

is indigent and lacks legal training and the law is complex. 

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in

habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th

Cir. 1996). However, whenever the court determines the interests

of justice so require, representation may be provided for any

financially eligible person who is seeking relief under section

18 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Unless an

evidentiary hearing is necessary, the decision to appoint counsel 

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MCE-CHS Document 13 Filed 08/12/05 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

2

is discretionary. Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984); Rule 8(c), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the petitioner’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, petitioner alleges his due process rights were

violated in connection with parole proceedings. Factual

development is not required because these proceedings are limited

to claims that already were identified and presented to the

California Supreme Court. There is, on the record before the

court, no reason to believe appointment of counsel would be of

significant benefit. Although courts are in disagreement

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MCE-CHS Document 13 Filed 08/12/05 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

3

regarding the existence of a liberty interest appointment of

counsel would not be helpful because the issue presently is

pending before the court of appeals. 

Petitioner’s April 22, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: August 11, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00797-MCE-CHS Document 13 Filed 08/12/05 Page 3 of 3