Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00589/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00589-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph J. Flowers
Petitioner
F. Foulk
Respondent

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

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

Petitioner,

v.

F. FOULK, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-00589-CW (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

“REHEARING” ON REQUEST TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL

(Docket No. 38)

On May 12, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment 

of counsel, which was denied in an Order dated June 3, 2014. 

Doc. no. 17.

Petitioner has now filed a motion for a “rehearing” on his

request to appoint counsel on the grounds that he “is not in the 

least of positions in investigating actual witnesses wearabouts

[sic] and the Department of Corrections has lost his property.” 

Respondent has not yet filed his answer to the petition.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in 

habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 

(9th Cir. 1986). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, 

authorizes a district court 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. The decision to appoint counsel 

Case 4:14-cv-00589-CW Document 43 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

is within the discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 

801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; 

Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts 

have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the 

rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on 

substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and 

factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or 

physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the 

assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; 

(5) cases in which the petitioner is in no position to investigate 

crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 

J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and 

Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is 

mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case 

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due 

process violations. Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 

345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 

In its June 3, 2014 Order, the Court stated: 

The court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted 

in this case. Petitioner’s claims appear to be the typical 

claims that arise in criminal appeals and habeas petitions 

and are not especially complex. This does not appear to be 

an exceptional case that would warrant representation on 

federal habeas review. There also is no indication that an 

evidentiary hearing is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). 

If during its review of the merits of the petition the Court 

determines that further fact finding is required, the Court 

will decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or 

whether the facts can be gathered by way of mechanisms short 

of an evidentiary hearing, such as supplementation of the 

record with sworn declarations from the pertinent witnesses. 

Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1081, 1041 (9th Cir. 2000).

June 3, 2014 Order at 5.

Case 4:14-cv-00589-CW Document 43 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For the same reasons, Petitioner’s motion for a “rehearing” 

on his request to appoint counsel is denied.

This Order terminates Docket no. 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015

__________________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00589-CW Document 43 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 3