Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02301/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02301-5/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH CHARLES CHAPMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SUZANNE M. PEERY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 13-cv-02301-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 31.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (a)(2)(B), 

however, authorizes a district court 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. 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); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; 

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule by limiting 

it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed 

legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired 

petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the 

claims; (5) cases in which the petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and 

(6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus 

Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only when 

the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due 

process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 

Case 4:13-cv-02301-YGR Document 35 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1965). 

Petitioner claims that appointment of counsel is appropriate because he suffers from 

schizophrenia. Dkt. 31 at 4. However, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not 

warranted at this time. Petitioner’s claim was briefed by counsel on direct appeal, and it is not 

especially complex. This is not an exceptional case that would warrant representation on federal 

habeas review. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel, and 

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 

reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary hearing necessary following consideration of 

the merits of Petitioner’s claims. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 31.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

July 25, 2016

Case 4:13-cv-02301-YGR Document 35 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2