Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02133/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02133-1/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 

16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB) 

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 

GERONIMO POLINA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

(ECF NO. 13) 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On December 8, 2016, Petitioner filed 

a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 13.) 

 Previously, on October 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel (ECF No. 9) that was denied without prejudice by this Court on November 1, 

2016. (ECF No. 11.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02133-WQH-RNB Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB) 

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

 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); Chaney v. Lewis, 

801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 

1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the interests 

of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (2014); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 

F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 

 The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an 

evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 

728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when 

no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181 (citing Bashor, 730 F.2d 

at 1234); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing 

becomes necessary in the future, the Court will require appointment of counsel at that time. 

 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas 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.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 

1196 (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970)); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 

728-29. The Ninth Circuit considers the clarity and coherence of a petitioner’s district 

court pleadings to determine the necessity of appointment of counsel; if clear and 

understandable, the court typically finds appointment of counsel unnecessary. See LaMere 

v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, the Eighth Circuit notes that “[w]here 

the issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district 

court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel.” 

Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); see Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181-82. 

 At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is 

required to prevent a due process violation. There is no indication that the issues are too 

complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. Also, there has been no 

change in the case since the Court denied Petitioner’s first request for appointment of 

Case 3:16-cv-02133-WQH-RNB Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB) 

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

counsel last month that would warrant a different finding now. Petitioner claims lack of 

knowledge of the law. However, that is not an exceptional circumstance that warrants 

appointment of counsel. Further, as previously noted, based on the face of the Petition, it 

appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved, and at 

this point, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues involved on the 

basis of the state court record. Therefore, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not 

require the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 12, 2016 

 _________________________ 

 LOUISA S PORTER 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02133-WQH-RNB Document 14 Filed 12/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3