Cruz-Santos v. Fox

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING 42 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SIDONIO CRUZ-SANTOS,
Petitioner,

8
9

v.

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ROBERT W. FOX,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02447-HSG

Re: Dkt. No. 42
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, arguing that his transfer to

14

Pelican Bay State Prison has resulted in lack of access to paralegal help. Dkt. No. 42. Petitioner

15

also states that he does not speak, read, or otherwise understand English, and is unable to

16

understand the laws. Id. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas

17

actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Pursuant to statute, however,

18

a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the

19

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

20

obtain representation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Here, the habeas petition is fully briefed.

21

The interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

22

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should the circumstances of the case materially

23

change, the Court may reconsider Petitioner’s request sua sponte.

24

This order terminates Docket No. 42.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 10/31/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge