Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01400/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01400-3/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

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-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ALLEN ARNOLD, Civil No. 07CV1400 LAB (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 9.)

vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted his Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner has requested

appointment of counsel, citing 18 U.S.C. 3006(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1959(d). (Doc. No. 9.) At

this time the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s request for appointment of

counsel for the reasons stated below. 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus

actions by state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert

v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986); Hood v. Galaza, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1149

(S.D.Cal. 1999). 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); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176,

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

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

evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; 

Case 3:07-cv-01400-LAB-POR Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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-

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 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. 

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; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. A due process violation may occur in the absence of

counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. 

In the Eighth Circuit, “[t]o determine whether appointment of counsel is required for

habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a district court should consider the legal

complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner’s ability to

investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant factors.”Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d

571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). Because these factors are useful in determining whether due

process requires the appointment of counsel, they are considered to the extent possible based

on the record before the Court.

At this time, no appointment of counsel is warranted because an evidentiary hearing

has not been granted, nor is counsel needed to prevent a due process violation. From the face

of the petition, filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner understands his case and the legal issues

involved. Additionally, Petitioner plead sufficiently to move the Court to order Respondent

to file responsive pleadings. Under such circumstances, a district court does not abuse its

discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel, as it is simply not

warranted by the interests of justice. See Berry v. Grigas, 171 Fed. Appx. 188, 191-2 (9th

Cir. 2006). Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that the “interests of

justice” do not require the appointment of counsel.

If an evidentiary hearing is required, Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases requires that counsel be appointed to a petitioner who qualifies under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B). Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d

1054 (5th Cir. 1979). In addition, the Court may appoint counsel for the effective utilization

Case 3:07-cv-01400-LAB-POR Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

-3-

of any discovery process. Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. For the above-stated reasons,

the “interests of justice” in this matter do not compel the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 20, 2007

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01400-LAB-POR Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 3