Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06469/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06469-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Baughman
Respondent
Charles Edwards
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES EDWARDS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-06469-SI 

ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Petitioner has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A 

district court may 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the 

discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of justice 

do not require appointment of counsel at this time. The request for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED. Docket No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06469-SI Document 26 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 1