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)

Download PDF
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

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?