Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00831/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00831-9/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 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV 06-0831 ALA HC

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Before the Court is a document filed by habeas corpus petitioner Kenneth

Lee Martinez, entitled “Motion and Declaration for the Appointment of Counsel.” Therein, Mr.

Martinez asks the Court to appoint him counsel “because the issues and circumstances

surrounding this petition are particularly complex.” Motion at 2. He states that effective

presentation of his habeas claims “require[s] the professionalism that only an experienced

attorney can [provide].” Id.

“[T]he sixth amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00831-ALA Document 47 Filed 08/20/07 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 -2-

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). “Indigent state prisoners are not

entitled to court appointed counsel unless under the circumstances of the particular case [it] is

required in order to attain due process of law.” Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F. 2d 778, 782 (9th Cir.

1965). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), however, provides that “[w]henever the . . . court determines

that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible

person who . . . is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28.” The decision

whether to provide counsel is in the district court’s discretion unless an evidentiary hearing is

required. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988). “In deciding whether to

appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success

on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

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

(per curiam).

The interests of justice do not require that the Court obtain counsel for Mr. Martinez. 

Mr. Martinez’ habeas petition asserts eight claims: (1) his conviction of torture violated double

jeopardy because “the acts which . . made up the torture . . . were necessarily lesser included

offenses of the torture;” (2) the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to give the

jury a sua sponte unanimity instruction; (3) California’s definition of torture, set forth in

California Penal Code section 206, is invalid because it “was superseded by the United States’

ratification of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment;” (4) the trial court violated his due process rights by giving CALJIC

No. 2.50.02, which permits the jury to infer that the defendant has a disposition to commit

domestic violence if it finds the defendant committed a prior offense involving domestic

violence; (5) his conviction violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because

California Penal Code Section 206 is unconstitutionally vague; (6) the trial court’s imposition of

Case 2:06-cv-00831-ALA Document 47 Filed 08/20/07 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 -3-

consecutive life terms violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; (7) his conviction

violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation; and (8) his sentence violates Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The Court believes Mr. Martinez is unlikely to succeed on

the merits of these claims. Moreover, his amended habeas petition demonstrates that

 he is capable of articulating the basis of the claims without the aid of counsel. Consequently,

the Court will deny Mr. Martinez’ motion to have the Court ask an attorney to represent him.

DATED: August 17, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-00831-ALA Document 47 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 3