Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05602/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05602-3/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

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DINO LOREN SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY

Re: Dkt. No. 40

On November 25, 2009, Petitioner Dino Loren Smith (“Petitioner”), represented by 

counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 

detention at the California State Prison, Solano, in Vacaville, California. ECF No. 1. On May 15, 

2013, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 15. On August 

13, 2015, this Court ordered Respondent Gary Swarthout (“Respondent”) to show cause why the 

Amended Petition should not be granted. ECF No. 27. Respondent filed an Answer to the 

Amended Petition on December 11, 2015. ECF No. 31. 

On January 6, 2016, Petitioner’s attorney moved to withdraw as counsel due to serious 

health concerns. ECF No. 36. Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Petitioner’s counsel 

had “sent to [Petitioner] the financial declarations required for the Court’s consideration of 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 41 Filed 02/21/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY

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

Northern District of California

appointing [Petitioner] CJA counsel” and “believed that Petitioner will be requesting the 

appointment of counsel.” Id. at 1-2. On January 13, 2016, the Court granted Petitioner’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. ECF No. 38. The Court explained that “[a]s a result of this 

motion, Petitioner must find new counsel or file the traverse pro se.” Id. at 4. The Court also 

informed Petitioner that appointment of counsel in habeas cases is “the exception rather than the 

rule,” and requested that Petitioner address the standard for appointment of counsel should 

Petitioner seek appointment of counsel. Id. at 4-5. 

As of the date of the instant order, Petitioner has not filed a formal motion for appointment 

of counsel. However, on January 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a financial affidavit titled “Expanded 

declaration in support of attorney or other services pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.” ECF 

No. 40. The Court will construe Petitioner’s financial affidavit as a motion for appointment of 

counsel. First, Petitioner is now pro se, and the Court must construe Petitioner’s motions liberally. 

See Robles v. Duncan, 74 F. App’x 750, 752 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s financial affidavit is “in 

support of attorney . . . pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act,” which indicates that Petitioner seeks 

an attorney pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. ECF No. 40. Second, as noted above, 

Petitioner’s former counsel indicated that Petitioner would likely seek appointment of counsel. 

ECF No. 36. 

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). Courts have limited appointment of 

counsel to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or 

mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically 

impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 41 Filed 02/21/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY

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

Northern District of California

trying the claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) 

factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice 

and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994).

Here, no evidentiary hearing appears necessary, nor are any other extraordinary 

circumstances apparent. Additionally, Petitioner had the aid of counsel in preparing the Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. At this time, appointment of counsel is not mandated, and the 

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 

reconsideration should the developments of this case dictate otherwise.

Accordingly, Petitioner must file the traverse pro se or find new counsel. The deadline for 

the traverse to be filed is April 13, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 41 Filed 02/21/16 Page 3 of 3