Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01924/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01924-2/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 

16cv1656-JAH (DHB) 

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 

PHILONG HUYNH 

Petitioner,

v. 

J. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 15cv1924-BTM (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 32] 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On April 

20, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 32.) 

Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

 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). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief 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) (2014); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 

F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Case 3:15-cv-01924-BTM-AGS Document 45 Filed 08/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv1656-JAH (DHB) 

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

 The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an 

evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 

728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when 

no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181 (citing Bashor, 730 F.2d 

at 1234); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing 

becomes necessary in the future, the Court will require appointment of counsel at that time. 

 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not 

entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 

1196 (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970)); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 

728-29. The Ninth Circuit considers the clarity and coherence of a petitioner’s district 

court pleadings to determine the necessity of appointment of counsel; if clear and 

understandable, the court typically finds appointment of counsel unnecessary. See LaMere 

v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987.) Further, the Eighth Circuit notes that “[w]here 

the issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district 

court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel.” 

Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); see Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181-82. 

 At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is 

required to prevent a due process violation. Petitioner claims he needs assistance so that 

his interests will be protected. However, there is no indication that the issues are too 

complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. Further, based on the face 

of the Petition, and the subsequent motions Petitioner has filed pro se, it appears that 

Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. He has also been 

able to articulate the factual and legal bases of his claims in a clear and coherent manner. 

Indeed, Petitioner has been successful in getting a Petition on file, filing a motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, filing a motion to stay, objecting to a Report and 

Recommendation, and filing several requests for judicial notice. Moreover, at this point, 

it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues involved on the basis of the 

Case 3:15-cv-01924-BTM-AGS Document 45 Filed 08/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv1656-JAH (DHB) 

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

state court record. Therefore, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the 

appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 5, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01924-BTM-AGS Document 45 Filed 08/05/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3