Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01051/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01051-1/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)

---

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 08cv1051 JM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HAMMOND,

Petitioner,

v.

V.M. ALMAGER, Warden; M. SMELOSKY,

Warden;

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1051 JM (NLS)

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. No. 12]

Petitioner James Hammond, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition contesting

his confinement. On August 25, 2008 he filed a motion to appoint counsel. This Court denied that

motion on September 16, 2008, finding that appointment of counsel was not warranted because the

Court did not have any reason to set an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner had sufficiently represented

himself to date, and the issues in the case thus far did not appear so complex such that Petitioner could

not litigate them. 

Three weeks after that denial order, Petitioner filed a second motion for appointment of counsel,

citing the same exact four reasons why counsel should be appointed in his case: (1) Petitioner does not

have meaningful access to the law library due to “perpetual lock-downs due to no fault of his own;” (2)

he is not trained in the law; (3) he cannot afford to hire his own legal counsel; and (4) the issues in this

case are very complex and Petitioner may not have been aware of all the possible claims he could have

brought. 

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01051-JM-NLS Document 13 Filed 11/06/08 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

2 08cv1051 JM (NLS)

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s second motion, and finds that no circumstances have

changed that could warrant either reconsidering its previous order denying appointment of counsel or

finding merit in Petitioner’s second motion to appoint counsel. Petitioner does not provide any new

reasons to bring his motion, nothing substantive has gone on in the case in between the first denial order

and Petitioner’s second motion, and no good cause exists to appoint counsel here. Further, while

counsel could be helpful in some cases, this Court will review the state court record independently, draw

its own legal conclusion and inform itself of the relevant law. Therefore, the additional assistance

counsel could provide is not compelling.

For these reasons, this Court DENIES Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 6, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01051-JM-NLS Document 13 Filed 11/06/08 Page 2 of 2