Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01563-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Schwartz
Respondent
James R. Walker
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

James R. Walker,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-1563 GEB PAN P

vs. Order 

T. Schwartz,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner 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

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-01563-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/06 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

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. 

Here, petitioner alleges his sentence and trial court error

in instructing the jury violate due process. The law governing

these issues 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 counsel would be of 

Case 2:05-cv-01563-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/06 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

significant benefit. 

 Petitioner’s November 21, 2005 motion for the appointment

of counsel therefore is denied.

 Petitioner’s December 6, 2005, request for an extension is

granted and petitioner may reply to respondent’s response to the

order to show cause on or before January 30, 2006. No further

extensions will be granted absent a showing of manifest

injustice.

 So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01563-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3