Lee v. Secretary of the California Department of Corrections

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)

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 13-01742 SBA (PR)

ERIC LEE,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS, 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

5

Cir. 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. 7.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated:

8/1/13

14

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.13\Lee1742.DenyAtty.wpd

2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
ERIC LEE,
Case Number: CV13-01742 SBA

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
SECRETARY OF CDCR et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

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 August 1, 2013, 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.

13
14
15
16

Eric Lee T-42633
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960

17
18

Dated: August 1, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.13\Lee1742.DenyAtty.wpd

3