Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01626/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01626-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

- 1 - 07cv1626

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN PIERRE ARTEAGA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1626 BEN (CAB)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. # 12]

vs.

ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. Attorney

General, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner Jean Pierre Arteaga (“Petitioner” or “Arteaga”) brought this Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (“the Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner renews his motion for

appointment of counsel. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas corpus. See McCleskey v. Zant,

499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991). Counsel “may be appointed for an impoverished habeas petitioner

whenever ‘the court determines that the interests of justice so require....’” Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d

1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Appointment of counsel becomes mandatory when an

Case 3:07-cv-01626-BEN-CAB Document 16 Filed 11/09/07 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 - 07cv1626

evidentiary hearing is required. Id. Petitioner is not requesting an evidentiary hearing in his motion.

Appointment of counsel is therefore not mandatory but discretionary. Id. 

Petitioner’s renewed motion does not establish that an appointment of counsel is necessary.

“In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th

Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). 

Petitioner has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Further, he has not

demonstrated that he is unable to articulate his claims. Petitioner points out that his motion for

appointment of counsel was drafted by the Federal Defenders of San Diego. This fact does not

establish, however, that had this organization not volunteered its services, Petitioner would have been

unable to articulate his claims. Petitioner admits that he has lived in the United States for the past 27

years. His lack of legal expertise alone does not warrant appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 9, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01626-BEN-CAB Document 16 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2