Torres v. Diaz

Filing 4

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 12-06224 YGR (PR)

JUAN M. TORRES,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Warden,
Respondent.

/

16
17

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel in this action.

18

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See

19

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B),

20

however, authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the

21

court determines that the interests of justice so require" and such person is financially unable to

22

obtain representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court.

23

See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Bashor v.

24

Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The courts have made appointment of counsel the

25

exception rather than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and

26

complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or

27

mentally or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either

28

in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial

1

facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas

2

Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only

3

when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent

4

due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir.

5

1965).

6

At this early stage of the proceedings the Court is unable to determine whether the

7

appointment of counsel is mandated for Petitioner. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not

8

require appointment of counsel at this time, and Petitioner's request is DENIED. This denial is

9

without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte reconsideration should the Court find an evidentiary

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

hearing necessary following consideration of the merits of Petitioner's claims.

11

This Order terminates Docket no. 2.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: January 30, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\HC.12\Torres6224.denyATTY.frm

2