Jackson v. Arnold

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/8/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH A. JACKSON,

12

Petitioner,

13

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01670-JDP

ERIC ARNOLD,

15

(Doc. No. 17)
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Kenneth A. Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a

18

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 21, 2018, the court received the

19

instant motion, in which petitioner requests appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 17.) In support of

20

his request, petitioner submits that his case involves “substantial and complex procedural, legal or

21

mixed legal and factual questions.” (Id. at 3.)

22

A petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right to counsel. See

23

Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958) (“The Sixth Amendment has no

24

application here . . . .”). There are three specific circumstances where appointment of counsel is

25

required in habeas proceedings. First, appointment of counsel is required for an indigent person

26

seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence in post-conviction proceedings under 28 U.S.C §§

27

2254 or 2255. See 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). Second, appointment of counsel may be required if

28
1

1

an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases 8(c).

2

Third, appointment of counsel may be necessary for effective discovery. See Rules Governing

3

Section 2254 and 2255 Cases 6(a). None of these situations is present at this time.

4

This court is further authorized to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a habeas

5

proceeding if the court determines that the interests of justice require the assistance of counsel.

6

See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

7

However, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to

8

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is

9

necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. In assessing whether to

10

appoint counsel, the court evaluates the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as

11

the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se, considering the complexity of the legal

12

issues involved. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

13

The court cannot conclude at this point that counsel is necessary to prevent a due process

14

violation. The legal issues currently involved are not exceptionally complicated and petitioner

15

has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the court finds that

16

appointed counsel is not necessary to guard against a due process violation and that the interests

17

of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time.

18

The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice

19

so require. If petitioner later renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed

20

explanation of the circumstances that he believes justify appointment of counsel.

21
22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of
counsel (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 8, 2018

/s/

26

Jeremy D. Peterson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2