Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01075/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01075-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT DENNIS SHERROD,

Petitioner,

v.

E. OREGEL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-LJO-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION

ECF No. 1

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

ECF No. 3

Petitioner Albert Dennis Sherron, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 1, and appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3. The matter 

is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. Under Rule 4, we must examine the habeas corpus petition and order a response unless it 

“plainly appears” that no relief is warranted. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th 

Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Because petitioner has 

failed to state a cognizable habeas claim, we recommend that the petition be dismissed and that 

the motion for appointment of counsel be denied.

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 16 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 4
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

Failure to State Cognizable Habeas Claim

Petitioner submitted two habeas petition forms in the same filing. The court will consider 

them together. Petitioner did not provide grounds for his habeas petition on the first form. ECF 

No. 1. On the second form, he states that Peace Officer Oregel violated his Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights by filing a “bogus” disciplinary report against him. ECF No. 1 at 

9, 20. He claims that Oregel saw another inmate attack him in an incident that caused him

“serious brain damage.” Id. 

Habeas relief is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his 

confinement and seeking an immediate or accelerated release. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477, 481 (1994) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973)). Here, petitioner does 

not argue that the disciplinary report increased his sentence, and he does not in any way challenge 

the fact or duration of his confinement. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over his claim and 

cannot grant habeas relief. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) 

(explaining challenges to the validity of confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the 

province of habeas corpus).1 

Motion for Counsel

Petitioner also moves for the appointment of counsel, stating that he lacks the funds to 

hire an attorney. ECF No. 3. A petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right 

to counsel. See Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958) (“The Sixth Amendment 

has no application here . . . .”). There are three specific circumstances in which appointment of 

counsel is required in habeas proceedings. First, appointment of counsel is required for an 

indigent person seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence in post-conviction proceedings 

under 28 U.S.C §§ 2254 or 2255. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). Second, appointment of counsel 

may be required if an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See R. Governing § 2254 Cases 8(c).

 

1 Although petitioner cannot seek habeas relief for his claim, he may be able to seek relief based 

on the circumstances of his confinement in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Muhammad v. 

Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Although petitioner’s false disciplinary report claim is not 

likely to be cognizable in a § 1983 action, claims that an officer failed to protect an inmate from 

harm may be cognizable. To the extent petitioner wishes to seek recourse from the actions or 

inactions of Officer Oregel which led to his physical injuries, he is free to file a § 1983 complaint.

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 16 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Third, appointment of counsel may be necessary for effective discovery. See id. at 6(a). None of 

these situations is present here.

This court is further authorized to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a habeas 

corpus proceeding if the court determines that the interests of justice require the assistance of 

counsel. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

However, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus 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. In assessing whether to 

appoint counsel, the court evaluates the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as 

the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims without counsel, considering the complexity of 

the legal issues involved. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

We cannot conclude at this point that counsel is necessary to prevent a due process 

violation. The legal issues currently involved are not exceptionally complicated, petitioner is able 

to articulate his claims, and petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

Accordingly, we find that appointed counsel is not necessary to guard against a due process 

violation and that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Order

Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is denied. ECF No. 3. 

Findings and Recommendations

We recommend that the court dismiss the petition and decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for 

the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, we submit the findings and 

recommendations to the U.S. district court judge presiding over the case. Within fourteen days of 

the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the 

findings and recommendations. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the 

findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 16 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-01075-DAD-JDP Document 16 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 4