Cruz-Santos v. Fox
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
ROBERT W. FOX,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-02447-HSG
Re: Dkt. No. 42
Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, arguing that his transfer to
Pelican Bay State Prison has resulted in lack of access to paralegal help. Dkt. No. 42. Petitioner
also states that he does not speak, read, or otherwise understand English, and is unable to
understand the laws. Id. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas
actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 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). Here, the habeas petition is fully briefed.
The interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Should the circumstances of the case materially
change, the Court may reconsider Petitioner’s request sua sponte.
This order terminates Docket No. 42.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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?