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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?