Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01346/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Delano Read
Petitioner
E. Valenzuela
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 15-1346 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

CHARLES DELANO READ, 

Petitioner,

v.

E. VALENZUELA, Warden,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-1346 LB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

COUNSEL 

[Re: ECF No. 4] 

Petitioner, Charles Delano Read, has requested 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). Appointment of counsel is required when there will be

an evidentiary hearing. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). The decision

to appoint counsel otherwise generally 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. . An evidentiary hearing does not appear necessary at this time; if one does become

necessary later, the court will appoint counsel on its own motion. Mr. Read's claims for federal

habeas relief have been adequately presented, as he attached to his habeas petition a copy of the state

Case 3:15-cv-01346-EMC Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 15-1346 LB

ORDER 2

court appellate brief in which his state court appellate attorney briefed the same claims. See Bashor

v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (although petitioner had no background in law, denial

of appointment of counsel was within discretion of district court where petitioner adequately

presented issues in petition and accompanying memorandum). The request for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. ECF No. 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01346-EMC Document 5 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 2