Barkley v. Cate

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 4 MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

CHRIS BARKLEY,

4
5
6

No. C 10-05389 CW (PR)

Petitioner,

(Docket no. 14)

v.
JAMES NUEHRING, Warden,
Respondent.

/

7
8

CHRIS BARKLEY,

No. 11-01269 CW (PR)

Petitioner,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(Docket no. 4)

v.

11

MATTHEW CATE, Director,
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,

12

Respondent.
________________________________/

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

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel in each
of his two pending habeas corpus actions.
The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas
actions.

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986).

Pursuant to statute, however, a

district court is authorized 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."

See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

Additionally, Rule

8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases makes the appointment
of counsel mandatory pursuant to section 3006A(g) whenever an
evidentiary hearing is required in a habeas action.

See United

States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68 F.3d 369, 370 (9th Cir. 1995).
Based on the record presented to date in each of Petitioner's
cases, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not required.

1 Petitioner's claims have been presented adequately, and the arguments
2 made in support of the claims have been placed in context by the
3 exhibits lodged by Respondent in support of the answers.
4

Further, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not in a

5 position to determine whether an evidentiary hearing will be
6 required.

If, during its review of the merits of the petition, the

7 Court determines that further fact-finding is required, the Court
8 will decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or whether the
9 facts can be gathered by way of mechanisms short of an evidentiary
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10 hearing, such as supplementation of the record with sworn
11 declarations from the pertinent witnesses.

See Downs v. Hoyt, 232

12 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2000).
13

In sum, the interests of justice do not require appointment of

14 counsel in these cases at this time.

Should the circumstances change

15 materially at a later stage of the litigation, the Court will
16 reconsider this decision on its own initiative.
17

Accordingly, Petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel are

18 DENIED without prejudice.
19

This Order terminates Docket no. 14 in C 10-05389 and Docket

20 no. 4 in C 11-01269.
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: 3/8/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2