Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01905/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01905-0/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

17cv1905 DMS (BGS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JAMES BOELKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYNTHIA TOMPKINS, Warden

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1905 DMS (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 18]

Petitioner Adam James Boelkes has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

(ECF No. 18.) He seeks appointment because he is unable to afford counsel, he has made 

repeated efforts to obtain a lawyer, he believes the issues presented in this case are 

complex, he has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law, and he 

is in prison. Further, he believes counsel would better enable plaintiff to present evidence 

if a hearing were to be held in this matter. (Id. at 1-2.) 

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

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted); see also 

McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th 

Cir. 1986). Courts have the discretion to appoint counsel for indigents when “a magistrate 

Case 3:17-cv-01905-DMS-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1905 DMS (BGS)

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

or the district court ‘determines that the interests of justice so require.’” Terrovona v. 

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)). 

“Indigent 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 (citations omitted); 

see also Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. Generally, when an evidentiary hearing is not 

warranted, the “denial of a motion to appoint counsel at government expense does not 

amount to a denial of due process.” Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. 

The Court finds Petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel. Most of the 

concerns raised by Petitioner, i.e. being in custody, having limited access to the law library 

and limited legal knowledge, and being unable to afford counsel, apply to almost every 

habeas petitioner. 

More importantly, these do not raise due process concerns. At this point, because 

the Court does not find an evidentiary hearing is warranted, Petitioner would only be 

entitled to appointment of counsel if its denial would constitute a violation of due process. 

The Court finds that it is not. As is the case in considering every habeas petition, the Court 

is obligated to and will view Petitioner’s filings liberally and independently scrutinize the 

state court record. Id. at 729 (finding highly protective procedures for pro se petitioners 

and court’s obligation to “review the record and render an independent legal conclusion” 

weigh in favor of finding that due process does not require appointment of counsel). 

Additionally, there is nothing about his claims or Petitioner’s ability to present his 

claims that indicates the particular circumstances of his case require counsel or that counsel 

should be appointed in the interest of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (finding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying habeas petitioner 

appointed counsel based on interest of justice when his pleadings demonstrated he had a 

good understanding of the case and could coherently present his contentions). Petitioner 

Case 3:17-cv-01905-DMS-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1905 DMS (BGS)

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

has demonstrated his ability to present his claims in his petitions. (See ECF No. 1, 10, 12.) 

Accordingly, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 18) is DENIED

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-01905-DMS-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3