Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00357-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON J. BROOKFIELD,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:11-cv-00357-AWI-JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 30)

On July 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. (Doc. 30).

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958);

Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18

U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of

justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the

Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s

reliance upon Martinez v. Ryan, __U.S.__, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), is misplaced. In that case, the

Supreme Court dealt with an Arizona inmate raising a claim of ineffective assistance. Because,

under Arizona law, a petitioner cannot raise ineffective assistance in his direct appeal, but can only

raise it initially on collateral attack, the Supreme Court held that in such cases a procedural default

1

Case 1:11-cv-00357-AWI-JLT Document 31 Filed 07/18/12 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

will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing the inmate’s claims if, in the initial-review collateral

proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel was ineffective. Id. at 1315-1320. Here, by contrast,

California law permits a state inmate to raise ineffective assistance in his direct appeal and, more

importantly, there is no indication that Petitioner was procedurally barred from raising this issue

because of state law. Accordingly, Martinez is entirely inapposite.

Second, Petitioner appears to argue that the case is so complex that appointed counsel is

required. The Court disagrees. Sixth Amendment law on ineffective assistance, unlike many issues

that arise in the habeas context, is quite clearly prescribed and delineated in the cases and does not

appear, to the Court, to pose such a complex legal analysis that appointed counsel is required at this

juncture. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of

counsel (Doc. 30), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:11-cv-00357-AWI-JLT Document 31 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 2