Murray v. Lozano

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 11 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICKEY PAUL MURRAY,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 20-cv-00471-HSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 11

J. LOZANO,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California Medical Facility, filed this pro se

14

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the

15

Court is petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 11. Petitioner requests counsel

16

on the grounds that he is indigent and unable to afford counsel, so that his “interests may be

17

protected by the professional assistance required,” and because Cal. R. Ct. 4.551(c)(2) requires

18

that counsel be appointed for indigent petitioners upon request. Dkt. No. 11 at 1-2. Petitioner’s

19

request is DENIED for the following reasons.

20

The California Rules of Court govern cases filed in California state courts, and do not

21

apply in federal habeas actions. While there is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, it does not

22

apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 18

23

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

24

petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require” and such person

25

is financially unable to obtain representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the

26

discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The courts

27

have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital

28

cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual

1

questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases

2

likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in

3

which the petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases.

4

See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at

5

383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

6

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801

7

F.2d at 1196.

8
9

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is denied because the record does not
indicate that justice requires the appointment of counsel. Petitioner has adequately presented the
issues in this action. This case does not appear to be factually complex, and does not require

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

expert testimony or further factual investigation. The Court therefore exercises its discretion and

12

DENIES petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to sua sponte

13

appointing counsel if circumstances so require. See, e.g., LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626

14
15
16
17

(9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in denying appointment of counsel where pleadings
illustrated that petitioner had good understanding of issues and ability to present forcefully and
coherently his contentions); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (no abuse of
discretion in denying request for appointment of counsel where petitioner was over 60 years of age
and had no background in law, but he thoroughly presented issues in petition and accompanying

18
memorandum).
19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES petitioner’s request for appointment of

20
counsel.
21
This order terminates Dkt. No. 11.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
26

Dated: 6/15/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
2