Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01144-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lou Blanes
Respondent
Andrew A. Cejas
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Andrew A. Cejas,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S-05-1144 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Lou Blanes,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a pretrial detainee in state court, requests

appointment of counsel on the grounds he is indigent and lacks

legal training and the law is complex. 

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in

habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th

Cir. 1996). However, whenever the court determines the interests

of justice so require, representation may be provided for any

financially eligible person who is seeking relief under section

24 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Unless an 

Case 2:05-cv-01144-LKK -PAN Document 15 Filed 02/01/06 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

2

evidentiary hearing is necessary, the decision to appoint counsel

is discretionary. Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984); Rule 8(c), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

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

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the petitioner’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Petitioner, charged with first-degree murder with torture,

alleges bail is excessive, the evidence at the preliminary

hearing was inadequate and the judge displayed bail by finding

evidence of intent to torture from photographs of the victim

without cross-examination. I have found the court should abstain 

pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1946), but gave 

Case 2:05-cv-01144-LKK -PAN Document 15 Filed 02/01/06 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

3

petitioner the opportunity to explain in writing why the

abstention doctrine does not prevent the court from reaching the

merits. 

The law governing this issue is settled. Neither factual

development nor legal insight are required. There is, on the

record before the court, no reason to believe appointment of

counsel would be of significant benefit. 

 Petitioner’s January 23, 2006, request for the appointment

of counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: January 31, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01144-LKK -PAN Document 15 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 3