Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01940/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01940-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA,

Petitioner,

v.

DARRIL ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10cv1940-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL 

[ECF No. 24]

On December 11, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, moved this Court to appoint counsel. ECF No. 24. In support of his motion, Petitioner

states that he “cannot afford to employ the services of an attorney in the foregoing matter” Id.

at 1. Having considered the request submitted by Petitioner and the applicable law, and for the

reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion for appointment counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions

by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 459 (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 whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so

10CV1940-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 31 Filed 12/27/12 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

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir.

1990) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (“Indigent state prisoners

applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances

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

violations.”). Whether or not to appoint counsel is a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless

an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 729-30 (9th Cir.

1986) (explaining that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court

conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition.). 

The court’s discretion to appoint counsel may be exercised only under “exceptional

circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).1

 “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 factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

before reaching a decision.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court has reviewed the motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 24], motion for sanctions

[ECF No. 26], motion for extension of time [ECF No. 28], and motion for entry of default

judgment [ECF No. 17] submitted by Petitioner in this case and finds that Petitioner has provided

a thorough and clear recitation of his contentions. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner not only

has a sufficient grasp of the legal issues involved in his case, but also that Petitioner is able to

articulate those arguments adequately without legal assistance. Under such circumstances, a

district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment

of counsel as it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. 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”). While the claims set forth in

Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 10] are less clear than

his other pleadings, it is still clear that he has not established a likelihood of success on the

1

 The Terrell court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), but the legislature subsequently renumbered this section as

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

2 10CV1940-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 31 Filed 12/27/12 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

merits.2 See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. At this stage of the pleadings, the Court finds that the

interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel and that this habeas proceeding

does not present “exceptional circumstances” justifying the appointment of legal counsel. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 27, 2012

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s petition on numerous grounds, including that the

petition does not allege sufficient facts to state a constitutional violation. ECF No. 19. Petitioner’s opposition is

due February 19, 2013. ECF No. 30. The Court will consider the validity of Respondent’s arguments including the

sufficiency of Petitioner’s allegations in the petition, after the February 19th deadline has passed. 

3 10CV1940-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 31 Filed 12/27/12 Page 3 of 3