Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02507/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02507-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED - 3/12/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONTE BEVERLY,

Petitioner,

 v.

 BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-2507 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket No. 25)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a request for appointment of counsel. The court

DENIES petitioner’s request (docket no. 25 ) without prejudice. 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner moves the court for appointment of counsel. Petitioner requests that the

court appoint counsel because he is indigent, unable to afford counsel, and in order for his

interests to be protected in this matter. See Pet.’s Request at 1. However, 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 require,” the courts have made appointment of counsel the

Case 5:05-cv-02507-RMW Document 35 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.05\Beverly507denatty.wpd 2

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 so far and no

evidentiary hearing appears necessary based upon the claims presented. Accordingly,

petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 25) is DENIED without

prejudice. The court notes that petitioner’s traverse is currently due on or before March 28,

2008. 

 Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address by

filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the

court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action

for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/12/08 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:05-cv-02507-RMW Document 35 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.05\Beverly507denatty.wpd 3

This is to certify that on 3/12/08 , a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Lamonte Beverly 

V-07217 

CTF-North 

Post Office Box 705 

Soledad, CA 93960-0705 

Case 5:05-cv-02507-RMW Document 35 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 3