Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02230/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02230-0/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 F! L E D 2

If OCT |( PM 4:36 3

U.S. DISTRICT CO'IPT

zmiuanH uistrict or oaufusn!/ 4

5 fate BY:

Of ->Hr

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MCGHEE TONY DUCLOS, Case No.: 3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC

12 Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

13 v.

14 DANIEL PARAMO,

15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 15]

16

Petitioner McGhee Tony Duclos, (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and informapauperis, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before this Court is

petitioner’s Motion for Appointment ofCounsel. [Doc. No. 15] Petitioner asks the Court

to appoint counsel for him because he has “limited access to a law library and other

materials necessary to facilitate proper legal research.” [Id. at p. 1]. Petitioner further

contends that he “is a layman at the law with little experience in the complex and confusing

methods oflegal research, reasoning and writing.” [Id.] He “does not know what papers

should now be filed or submitted to the court or defendants, to further the litigation ofthis

case.” [Id.] For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

// 26

// 27

// 28

l

3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-02230-H-KSC Document 16 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 DISCUSSION

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); Bonin v. Vasquez,

999 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1993). District Courts have discretion to appoint counsel for a

“financially eligible person” when it determines “that the interests ofjustice so require.”

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Unless an evidentiary hearing is “warranted” under Rule 8(b)

of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the decision to appoint counsel is

within the discretion ofthe District Court. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-

729 (9th Cir. 1986). To determine whether to exercise this discretion, the District Court

“must focus on whetherthe denial ofpetitioner’s motion for appointment ofcounsel [would

amount] to a denial of due process.” Id.

Based on a review ofthe Petition and other filings in the case, the issues presented

are no more complex than those submitted by other habeas petitioners on a regular basis.

Thus far, petitioner has sufficiently represented himself. From the face ofhis Petition, it

appears petitioner has a good grasp ofthe legal and factual issues involved in his case.

Petitioner chose to resubmit briefing from his appeal to the California Court ofAppeals,

which contains extensive arguments alleging errors made by the trial court. Under these

circumstances, the Court finds that the interests ofjustice do not require the appointment

of counsel in petitioner’s case at this time. The Court will reconsider this decision ifit is

determined at a later date that an evidentiary hearing is warranted or if other

circumstances indicate appointment of counsel is necessary to avoid a violation of due

process.

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

3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-02230-H-KSC Document 16 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 CONCLUSION

Consequently, Petitioner Duclos’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No.

15] is DENIED without prejudice.

2

3

4

October //, 2017 5 Dated:

6

7

United States Magistrate Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-02230-H-KSC Document 16 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3