Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06690/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06690-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Rackley
Respondent
Charles M. Titlow
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES M. TITLOW,

Petitioner,

v.

RON RACKLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-06690-EMC 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Docket No. 8

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel 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 in this action. Petitioner states that he only went through 

the ninth grade in school, and “is not literate enough to do his own legal research.” Docket No. 2. 

However, he is learning to read in prison and states that he can find someone to read legal 

documents to him. Docket No. 8 at 1-2. He has worked throughout his adult life as a union 

carpenter, which is not a job for the completely illiterate. Id.at 2. The claims presented in his 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-06690-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California

habeas petition are not particularly complex and were briefed on direct appeal, where Petitioner 

was represented by counsel. Indeed, his petition has the state court appellate brief attached to it 

for the statement of his claims. For these reasons, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel 

is DENIED. Docket No. 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06690-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 2