Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03044/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03044-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN L. POOLE II, Civil No. 14cv3044-BTM (MDD)

Petitioner, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION;

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and,

(3) EXTENDING TIME TO FILE

THIRD AMENDED PETITION 

v.

BONNIE DUMANIS, et al.,

Respondents.

On December 23, 2014, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request

to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) On February 9, 2015, the Court denied

the application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the Petition without

prejudice for failure to allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. (ECF No. 5.)

On February 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition and a Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 6-7.) On March 17, 2015, the Court granted

Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed the First Amended

Petition without prejudice because he had once again failed to allege exhaustion ofstate

court remedies. (ECF No. 18.) 

-1- 14cv3044

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/21/15 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

On March 23, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF

No. 20.) On April 24, 2015, he filed a Second Amended Petition, which alleged

exhaustion of state court remedies but failed to list any claims, referring instead to the

claims presented in his previous petitions. (ECF No. 23.) On May 7, 2015, the Court

dismissed the Second Amended Petition without prejudice on the basis that it was not

complete in and of itself and not on a court-approved form. (ECF No. 25.) Petitioner

was sent an amended petition form, and was instructed that if he wished to proceed with

this matter he was required, on or before June 1, 2015, to file a Third Amended Petition

which was complete in and of itself and on a court-approved form. (Id. at 2.)

After that Order of dismissal wasfiled, the Court received a brief in support of the

Second Amended Petition, which appears to have crossed in the mail with the Order of

dismissal. (ECF No. 26.) Because the Second Amended Petition has been dismissed

without prejudice and with leave to amend, the brief filed in support thereof, which does

not cure the defects of pleading of the Second Amended Petition, is rendered moot.

Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Clarification in which he indicates that he

wishes to clarify that he has exhausted his state court remedies, and requests this Court

to copy and mail to Petitioner several documents which, although unclear, were either

supposed to have been attached to the Motion but were not, or have been filed in the

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, or which Petitioner intends to file

in that court. (ECF No. 22.) The Motion for Clarification is DENIED, as Petitioner has

already alleged that he has exhausted his state court remedies, and because there is

insufficient information to identify which documents Petitioner requests this Court to

copy for him. (See ECF No. 22 at 4.) 

Additionally, Petitioner’s Motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice as premature. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to

federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495

(1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith,

791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief

-2- 14cv3044

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/21/15 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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines

that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v.

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234

(9th Cir. 1984). The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court

conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition or utilizes the discovery process. 

Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2254; Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary

where no evidentiary hearing or discovery is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177;

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; see Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (“Indigent state prisoners

applying for habeasrelief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances

of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process

violations.”)

It is premature at this point in the case to determine whether the “interests of

justice” warrant the appointment of counsel. The Motion for appointment of counsel is

therefore DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner to renew after he has filed his Third

Amended Petition.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification [ECF No. 22] is

DENIED, his Motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 20] is DENIED without

prejudice, and this action remains DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to

amend. The Court EXTENDS the deadline for Petitioner to file the Third Amended

Petition. If he wishes to proceed with this matter, he must file a Third Amended Petition

no later than July 1, 2015, which is complete in and of itself and is on a court-approved

petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2015

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-3- 14cv3044

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3