Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00276/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00276-3/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 Claims to which petitioner had no objection include: Claim 1: the trial court

improperly denied his motion to dismiss (see Objection at 1, n.1); Claim 2: the trial court

improperly instructed the jury with respect to felony murder (see Obj. at 1 n.1, at 3, n.4) and the

failure to give a pinpoint instruction on aiding and abetting (see Obj. at 3 n.4) but petitioner

objects to the lack of a lesser included offense, accomplice and assault/aggravated assault

instructions; Claim 3: the trial court failed to rule on an objection during closing argument (see

Obj. at 3, n.4); Claim 4: the trial court improperly denied his severance motion (see Obj. at 3,

n.4); Claim 5: the trial court was biased against him (see Obj. at 3, n.4); Claim 7: ineffective

03cv276

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS BUSTAMANTE,

Petitioner,

v.

S. GARCIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 03-CV-276-L(CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [doc.

#80]

Petitioner Jesus Bustamante filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 asserting nine claims. After full briefing, the magistrate judge entered a Report

and Recommendation ("Report") under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.3 that

recommended the petition be denied. Petitioner timely objected to the Report with respect to his

Claim 2 concerning three particular jury instructions; Claim 6 – prosecutorial misconduct; Claim

7 – ineffective assistance of trial counsel: and Claim 8 – ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel. But petitioner did not object to other portions of the Report.1

Case 3:03-cv-00276-L-CAB Document 81 Filed 12/17/09 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

assistance of trial counsel but only to the issue of the failure to pursue the writ of mandamus (see

Obj. at 11); and Claim 9: insufficiency of the evidence (see Obj. at 7). As to these claims, the

Court adopted the Report and Recommendation without additional review.

2 03cv276

The Court made a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which

petitioner objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After a thorough review of the entire record in this

case and the parties’ arguments, the Court adopted the Report in its entirety. Petitioner filed a

notice of appeal on September 29, 2009. [docket # 77] In a footnote in the notice of appeal,

petitioner stated that his “legal assistant is now preparing the certificate of appealability and it

will be mailed forthwith as soon as completed.” On October 15, 2009, petitioner requested and

was granted an extension of time until December 9, 2009, in which to file his application for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). [doc. #79] On the date his application was due, petitioner

instead filed a motion for appointment of counsel for proceedings in the district court and

declaration of indigency. [doc. #80] 

As a procedural matter, the sole remaining issue in the present case is whether a

certificate of appealability should issue. The Court notes that petitioner has not been represented

by counsel in this habeas action since 2005. [doc. #44] After counsel withdrew, petitioner has

had the assistance of James W. Brammer, a fellow prisoner, in prosecuting this action. Petitioner

states that he has been unable to locate Mr. Brammer.

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert v.

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). However, the

district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court

determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain

representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the

discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.1986), cert.

denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). 

 In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by

the appointment of counsel. Specifically, petitioner's claims were adequately presented in the

petition, traverse, supplemental traverse and objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

Case 3:03-cv-00276-L-CAB Document 81 Filed 12/17/09 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

3 03cv276

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 2009. As noted above, the only activity

remaining before the district court is petitioner’s application for a COA. The Court is required

to address whether a COA is warranted even when the petitioner does not specifically request its

issuance. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997)(“If no express request

is made for a certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to constitute a

request for a certificate.”). 

Because petitioner has not filed an application for a COA within the extended time

provided, the court construes petitioner's notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of

appealability. The Court will enter a separate order directed to the issuance of a COA. As a

result of the procedural posture of the case, the interests of justice would not be served by the

appointment of counsel

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:03-cv-00276-L-CAB Document 81 Filed 12/17/09 Page 3 of 3