Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02492/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02492-0/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

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

William Thorton,

Petitioner,

v.

Raythel Fisher, Jr.,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2492 PCL

ORDER: 

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc.

40.) 

Petitioner requests the Court appoint counsel to assist him in his habeas case. (Doc.

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

actions by state prisoners. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991) (citing

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“The right to appointed counsel

extends to the first appeal of right, and no further”); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460

(9th Cir. 1996) (noting that there currently exists no constitutional right to appointment of

counsel in habeas proceedings); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986).

However, courts may appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas petitioners

seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where “the interests of justice so require.” 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Whether or not to appoint counsel

1

16cv2492 PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02492-PCL Document 45 Filed 08/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

is a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the

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

hearing on the petition). 

A court’s discretion to appoint counsel may be exercised only under “exceptional

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the

merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both

must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Petitioner argues that he is unable to represent herself in habeas proceedings

because he is untrained in the law and his case is legally complicated. (Doc. 17.)

However, “[a]ny pro se litigant certainly would be better served with the assistance of

counsel.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other

grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)). But a petitioner is only entitled to appointed

counsel if he can show “that because of the complexity of the claims he [is] unable to

articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Petitioner has been able to adequately

articulate his habeas claims in his Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 28, 2017

 Peter C. Lewis

United States Magistrate Judge

2

16cv2492 PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02492-PCL Document 45 Filed 08/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2