Opinion ID: 720163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to authorize the appointment of a psychiatrist

Text: 14 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e), counsel for an indigent habeas petitioner may in an ex parte application request the district court to authorize the expenditure of funds for expert services. Approval of the expense is mandatory where the district court is satisfied that the services are necessary and that the person is financially unable to obtain them. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) (1994). The appointment of a psychiatrist under § 3006A(e) is within the district court's discretion. United States v. Valtierra, 467 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir.1972). 15 The district court's denial of a § 3006A(e) request will not mandate reversal unless the habeas petitioner: (1) establishes that reasonably competent retained counsel would have required the requested services for a habeas petitioner who could pay for them, and (2) demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the defense was prejudiced by the [court's refusal to appoint a psychiatrist]. Bonin, 59 F.3d at 837. Barnes has not satisfied either of these criteria. Because Barnes's incompetency claim is clearly without merit, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to appoint a psychiatrist. Cf. Lawson v. Dixon, 3 F.3d 743, 753 (4th Cir.1993) (approving the district court's refusal to appoint a psychiatrist where the habeas petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his competency claim), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1208 (1994).