Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02779/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02779-1/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

Order Denying Motions

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.05\Uvalles779.atty.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL UVALLES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2779 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

UNSEAL AND FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 32, 33)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed the instant petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2544. Petitioner has filed a motion to “unseal” a

motion filed in state court pursuant to California Rule of Court 2.551(H). This court has no

authority to unseal a motion that has been sealed in another court, and the California Rules of

Court do not apply to cases filed in federal court, such as the instant action. Petitioner must seek

the relief he requests in state court, not in federal court. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to

unseal a state court motion (Docket No. 32) is DENIED. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment’s

right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

728 (9th Cir. 1986). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint

counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if “the court determines that the interests of justice so

*E-FILED - 8/18/08*

Case 5:05-cv-02779-RMW Document 34 Filed 08/18/08 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

Order Denying Motions

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.05\Uvalles779.atty.wpd 2

require,” the courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule. 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

At present, the court notes that petitioner has aptly presented his claims thus far and no

evidentiary hearing appears necessary based upon the claims presented. Moreover, petitioner

has been granted over four months to prepare a response to respondent’s pending motion to

dismiss. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 33) is

DENIED. The court notes that petitioner’s opposition is currently due on or before September

12, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

8/15/08

Case 5:05-cv-02779-RMW Document 34 Filed 08/18/08 Page 2 of 2