Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05825/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05825-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony J. Malfi
Respondent
Charles Lee Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LEE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY J. MALFI, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-5825 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 2)

On September 22, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; that same date,

petitioner filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. On January 5, 2007, the Court

ordered respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on

petitioner’s four cognizable claims. On April 13, 2007, the Court granted petitioner leave to

file an amended petition or a motion to stay the case. The Court now addresses petitioner’s

request for appointment of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. Knaubert

v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to

statute, however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such

person is financially unable to obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

Case 3:06-cv-05825-MMC Document 13 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Here, petitioner’s claims were adequately presented in the petition. Consequently, the

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in the instant case, and the Request

for Appointment of Counsel is hereby DENIED. Should the circumstances change materially

at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will reconsider this decision sua sponte.

This order terminates Docket No. 2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 18, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05825-MMC Document 13 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2