Tran v. People of the State of California

Filing 24

ORDER re 20 DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 2/16/10. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. / BINH C. TRAN, Petitioner, No. C 08-04686 CW (PR) ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel in this action. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Cir. 1986). See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, authorizes

a district court to 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. The decision to appoint counsel is within the See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d

discretion of the district court.

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts have made

appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule by

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J.

Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only

when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See

Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). The Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. Petitioner's claims are typical claims that arise in This is not an

criminal appeals and are not especially complex.

exceptional case that would warrant representation on federal habeas review. Therefore, Petitioner's motion for appointment of This denial is without prejudice to

counsel is DENIED.

reconsideration should the Court on its own motion find an evidentiary hearing necessary following consideration of the merits of Petitioner's claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/16/10 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BINH C. TRAN, Plaintiff, v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV08-04686 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al, Defendant. /

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 16, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Binh Cuong Tran F-26944 TCCF 415 U.S. Highway 49N Tutwiler, MS 38963 Dated: February 16, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

3