Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00877/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00877-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE SIMEON KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

B.M. CASH, Warden,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13cv877 GPC (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL 

[Doc. Nos. 8, 12]

Petitioner Maurice King, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition

contesting his confinement based on alleged violations of his sixth and fourteenth

amendment rights. Petitioner asks the court to appoint counsel to represent him on his

habeas petition. He argues that the court should appoint counsel because (1) Petitioner is

indigent; and (2) he requests an evidentiary hearing and would like the help of an

attorney for that process. The court has considered Petitioner’s request and DENIES

without prejudice his motion to appoint counsel.

Right to Counsel.

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

actions by state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). But

financially eligible habeas petitioners may obtain counsel whenever the court “determines

that the interests of justice so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v.

1 13cv877 GPC (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-00877-GPC-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/31/13 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

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

evidentiary hearing on the petition. Id. at 1177; Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722,

728 (9th Cir. 1986). When no evidentiary hearing is necessary, appointment of counsel is

discretionary. Id. In the Ninth Circuit, indigent prisoners are not entitled to appointed

counsel unless counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d

at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29.

Here, Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. From the face of the

petition, it appears that Petitioner could ably express himself and has a good grasp of this

case and the legal issues involved, as the court has ordered Respondent to respond to the

First Amended Petition. At this point the issues do not appear so complex such that

Petitioner cannot litigate them. Also, it is not evident at this time that an evidentiary

hearing is necessary. Under these circumstances, a district court does not abuse its

discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel. See LaMere

v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987).

Petitions Filed by Pro Se Litigants.

Federal courts highly protect a pro se petitioner’s rights. Knaubert, 791 F.2d at

729 (citation omitted). The court must construe a pro se petition more liberally than a

petition drafted by counsel. Id. It must also “scrutinize the state court record

independently to determine whether the state court procedures and findings were

sufficient.” Id. Even if the court accepts a state court’s factual findings, it must draw its

own legal conclusion regarding the legality of the incarceration. Id. The appellate court

will review the district court’s conclusion de novo. Id. 

The court acknowledges that counsel can provide valuable assistance: “An

attorney may narrow the issues and elicit relevant information from his or her client. An

attorney may highlight the record and present to the court a reasoned analysis of the

controlling law.” Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. The court, however, also notes that “unless

an evidentiary hearing is held, an attorney’s skill in developing and presenting new

2 13cv877 GPC (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-00877-GPC-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/31/13 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

evidence is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on the state court

record alone.” Id.

This court will review the trial record independently, draw its own legal conclusion

and inform itself of the relevant law. Therefore, the additional assistance counsel could

provide, while significant, is not compelling. Also, Petitioner has already sufficiently

pleaded his claims, warranting this court’s order directing Respondent to file an answer

or other responsive pleading. The court finds that Petitioner, at this point, is capable to

litigate the claims in his habeas petition. Finally, if the court later determines that an

evidentiary hearing is warranted, the court will reconsider whether to appoint counsel for

the hearing.

Here, the “interests of justice” do not compel the appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2013

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

3 13cv877 GPC (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-00877-GPC-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/31/13 Page 3 of 3