Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02726/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02726-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LAMAR BALL,

Petitioner,

 v.

D.K. SISTO, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-2726 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 1)

On June 28, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 29, 2007,

the Court ordered respondent to file an answer showing cause why the petition should not be

granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss on

procedural grounds. On October 1, 2007, respondent filed an answer to the petition; on

October 17, 2007, petitioner filed a traverse. The Court now addresses petitioner’s request

for appointment of counsel.

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). Pursuant to

statute, however, a district court is authorized to 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.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately presented in the petition. Moreover,

the Court anticipates that the exhibits lodged by respondent in support of the answer, which

Case 3:07-cv-02726-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

exhibits include the briefs prepared by counsel and filed in the California Court of Appeal

and California Supreme Court, will further illuminate the arguments in support of petitioner’s

claims. Consequently, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the

instant case at this time. Should the circumstances change materially at a later stage of the

litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte. Accordingly, the request for

appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02726-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2