Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00164/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00164-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Enrique Guadalupe Bracamonte, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-10-164-TUC-JMR (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is the petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel filed on November

3, 2010. (Doc. 16)

On March 15, 2010, Enrique Guadalupe Bracamonte, an inmate confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. He filed an amended petition on April 23, 2010.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds pursuant to the Rules of Practice

of this court. See LRCiv 72.1(c). On October 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a report

recommending that the District Court deny the petition because Bracamonte’s claims are

procedurally defaulted. Bracamonte filed a response in which he moves for appointment of

counsel.

Because this motion was presented after the Magistrate Judge issued her report

recommending the petition be denied, the Magistrate Judge will address the instant motion by

filing a report and recommendation rather than an order.

Case 4:10-cv-00164-AWT Document 17 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Discussion

Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are entitled to appointed

counsel only if counsel is necessary to prevent a due process violation or “the interests of justice

so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert.

denied, Lewis v. Chaney, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). Neither due process nor the interests of justice

require the appointment of counsel at this time.

Prisoners have a due process right of access to the courts. This right, however, only

guarantees prisoners the legal resources necessary to ensure their petition will reach the court

for consideration. See Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, Henry

v. Caballero, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996). Prisoners have no right “to litigate effectively once in

court.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Once the petition reaches the court, there

is no due process right to counsel unless an evidentiary hearing is required. Knaubert v.

Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-29 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). 

In this case, Bracamonte has successfully presented his petition to the court for

consideration. An evidentiary hearing is not required at this time. Bracamonte, therefore, has

no due process right to counsel. 

In the alternative, counsel may be appointed “in the interests of justice” if the case is

particularly complex or the petitioner is facing the death penalty. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

In this case, the issues before the court are not particularly complex, and Bracamonte is

not facing the death penalty. Counsel therefore is not required “in the interests of justice.” See,

e.g., Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (The court acted within its discretion

when it declined to appoint counsel to a sixty-year-old petitioner who had no background in the

law but thoroughly presented his issues.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). 

RECOMMENDATION:

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of the

record, enter an order 

Case 4:10-cv-00164-AWT Document 17 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

Denying the petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel filed on November 3, 2010. (Doc.

16)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

14 days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are not

timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the parties

or their counsel. 

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00164-AWT Document 17 Filed 11/22/10 Page 3 of 3