Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00421/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00421-0/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

17cv421-H (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN PATRICK DAVIDSON,

Petitioner, 

v.

W.J. SULLIVAN,

Respondent. 

Case No.: 17cv421-H (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

[ECF No. 3]

Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254, and currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institute 

State Prison in Tehachapi, California, has submitted a motion in which he 

requests that the Court appoint counsel for him [Doc. No. 3]. In support, 

Petitioner argues counsel should be appointed to assist him in the case 

because Petitioner “is a layperson, indigent, and as expressed by the lower 

courts, the success of this petition is hinged on factual development which 

will require an expert witness, and other resources currently outside of the 

incarcerated petitioner’s means.” (ECF No. 3 at 1).

Case 3:17-cv-00421-H-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv421-H (MDD)

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

Having considered the request submitted by Petitioner and the 

applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal 

habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. See McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 

495 (1991); 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 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 1238, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate to the Court that appointment of 

counsel is warranted in this case. Having reviewed Petitioner’s filings in this 

case, the Court finds that Petitioner has sufficient grasp of his claims for 

Case 3:17-cv-00421-H-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv421-H (MDD)

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

habeas relief and the legal issues involved in those claims, and also is able to 

articulate those claims adequately without assistance. See LaMere v. Risley, 

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s denial of request 

for appointment of counsel where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had a 

“good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and 

coherently his contentions”). The Court also finds that Petitioner has not 

established a likelihood of success on the merits. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 

1017. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that this habeas 

proceeding does not present “exceptional circumstances” justifying the 

appointment of legal counsel. Id. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00421-H-MDD Document 8 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3