Thompson v. Lizarraga

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/26/15 denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT ALBERT THOMPSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1347 AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

JOE LIZARRAGA, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a habeas

18

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently pending is petitioner’s request for appointment

19

of counsel. Petitioner states that appointment of counsel is necessary to protect his interests in

20

this action. See ECF No. 3.

21

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions

22

filed by state prisoners under Section 2254. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991);

23

Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, a district court may appoint

24

counsel for an indigent habeas petitioner upon a finding that “the interests of justice so require.”

25

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Such a finding

26

is generally premised on a determination that “appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due

27

process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, for example,

28

petitioners must be represented by appointed counsel if the court conducts an evidentiary hearing.

1

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 729-30 (9th Cir. 1986).

2

In the instant case, the court finds that neither due process nor broader interests of justice

3

require appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner has filed a comprehensive, well organized

4

and clearly articulated petition that the court, by separate order, finds appropriate to serve on

5

respondent and require a response. When the court conducts the Section 2254(d) analysis in this

6

case, it will then determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted, see Cullen v. Pinholster,

7

131 S. Ct. 1388, 1399 (2011), or whether other interests of justice require appointment of counsel.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of
counsel, ECF No. 3, is denied without prejudice.
DATED: June 26, 2015

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2