Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00150/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00150-0/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

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

09cv0150-LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUILLIE L. HARVEY, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

A. HEDGPETH, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09cv0150-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 7]

On February 9, 2009, Petitioner Quillie Harvey, Jr., a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the Motion for

Assignment of Counsel currently before the Court. Doc. No. 7.

Petitioner contends that he requires appointed counsel because of the

seriousness of his case and because he “has very little legal experience

and knowledge of law.” Id. at 3. Petitioner also claims that the

prison lockdown and his limited access to the prison library have

impaired his ability to prepare his case. Id. at 8. Having considered

the request submitted by Petitioner and the applicable law, and for the

reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion for Assignment of Counsel

is DENIED without prejudice. 

///

Case 3:09-cv-00150-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 3
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 09cv0150-LAB (BLM)

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal

habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. See McClesky v. Zant, 499

U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir.

1996) (noting that there currently exists no constitutional right to

appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, courts may appoint counsel for

financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 where “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Whether or not to appoint

counsel is a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless an

evidentiary hearing is necessary. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d

722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the interests of justice

require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary

hearing on the petition).

The court’s discretion to appoint counsel may be exercised only

under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires

an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these factors

is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a

decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1986)).

The Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

submitted by Petitioner in this case. Doc. No. 1. This filing belies

Petitioner’s claims of an inability to understand the applicable law.

For example, in his Petition, Petitioner properly articulated a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. See id.

Case 3:09-cv-00150-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 02/23/09 Page 2 of 3
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

 Because of Petitioner’s demonstrated ability to cite proper authority and

clearly present his claims, the Court finds that the prison lockdown and his limited

library access have not impaired Petitioner’s ability to litigate this case thus far.

3 09cv0150-LAB (BLM)

Petitioner provides a thorough and clear recitation of his claims, and

cites appropriate authority.1 See id. Thus, the Court finds that

Petitioner not only has a sufficient grasp of his individual claims for

habeas relief and the issues involved in those claims, but also is able

to articulate those claims adequately without assistance. See LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s

denial of request for appointment of counsel where pleadings

demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding of the issues and the

ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions”). The

Court also finds that while Petitioner has asserted sufficient facts to

state a claim for federal habeas relief, he has not established a

likelihood of success on the merits. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that this habeas

proceeding does not present “exceptional circumstances” justifying the

appointment of legal counsel. Id. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for

Assignment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2009

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00150-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 02/23/09 Page 3 of 3