Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00432/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00432-2/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

Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.07\Bolden432denatty.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES BOLDEN,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, et al.

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0432 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 11 & 12)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee. Respondent has been ordered

to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable

claims. Petitioner has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. 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). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)

authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if “the court

determines that the interests of justice so require,” the courts have made appointment of

counsel the exception rather than the rule. Appointment is mandatory only when the

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

due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986);

*E-FILED - 5/27/08*

Case 5:07-cv-00432-RMW Document 13 Filed 05/27/08 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

Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.07\Bolden432denatty.wpd 2

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). Petitioner has thus far been able to

adequately present his claims for relief. Respondent has been ordered to produce the state

record, which may include petitioner’s state appellate briefs prepared by counsel. No

evidentiary hearing appears necessary in this case, nor are any other extraordinary

circumstances apparent. Accordingly, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is

not necessary at this time. Petitioner’s motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos.

11 & 12) are DENIED without prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

5/22/08

Case 5:07-cv-00432-RMW Document 13 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 2