Runquist v. Woodford et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Peter A. Nowinski on 1/5/06 DENYING 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Donati, J)

(HC) Runquist v. Woodford et al

Doc. 5

Case 2:05-cv-02614-GEB-EFB

Document 5

Filed 01/06/2006

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 vs. K. Prosper, Warden, et al., Respondents. -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. Cir. 1996). See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Richard G. Runquist, Petitioner, No. Civ. S-05-2614 GEB PAN P Order United States District Court Eastern District of California

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

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-02614-GEB-EFB

Document 5

Filed 01/06/2006

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

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. (7th Cir. 1981). See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

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. 887-88. Here, petitioner alleges his plea of guilty was involuntary and he was sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum without a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt the facts necessary to impose such a sentence. settled. The law governing these issues is Id. at

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
2

Case 2:05-cv-02614-GEB-EFB

Document 5

Filed 01/06/2006

Page 3 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

Court.

There is, on the record before the court, no reason to

believe appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit. Petitioner's December 27, 2005, motion for appointment of counsel therefore is denied. So ordered. Dated: January 5, 2006. /s/ Peter A. Nowinski PETER A. NOWINSKI Magistrate Judge

3