Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00357-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Respondent
Melvin L. Wilson
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

Melvin L. Wilson,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0357 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Scott Kernan, Warden,

Respondents.

-oOoAugust 16, 2005, petitioner requested appointment of counsel

and an extension of time. 

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

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

evidentiary hearing is necessary, the decision to appoint counsel 

Case 2:05-cv-00357-LKK -KJN Document 14 Filed 08/24/05 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

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

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

Here, petitioner alleges his constitutional rights were

violated in connection with his 2002 conviction. The law

governing the issues raised is settled. Neither factual

development nor legal insight are required because these

proceedings are limited to claims that already were identified

and presented to the California Supreme Court. There is, on the

record before the court, no reason to believe appointment of 

Case 2:05-cv-00357-LKK -KJN Document 14 Filed 08/24/05 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

counsel would be of significant benefit. 

Petitioner’s August 16, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied. Petitioner is granted an extension

to file his reply, which is due filed and served 30 days from

service of this order.

So ordered.

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00357-LKK -KJN Document 14 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3