Krueger v. Pallares

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.DENYING 6 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)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

SARA L KRUEGER,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 21-cv-06145-HSG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 6

MIKE PALLARES,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel, stating that an attorney is needed because

14

she is indigent; she was represented by appointed counsel in state courts; she has been granted in

15

forma pauperis status; the issues are complex including both procedural and substantive law’ the

16

case is serious; she does not understand the legal issues, she cannot undertake additional

17

investigation for the jury selection claim if that becomes necessary; and she is unable to respond to

18

a motion or answer filed by Respondent’s counsel. Dkt. No. 6. Petitioner’s request is DENIED

19

for the following reasons.

20

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert

21

v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)

22

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

23

determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to

24

appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

25

1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the

26

rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural,

27

legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or

28

physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in

1

framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which the petitioner is in no position to investigate

2

crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal

3

Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is

4

mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is

5

necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. The Court has

6

reviewed the record and finds that due process does not require appointment of counsel in this

7

case. The Court therefore exercises its discretion and DENIES Petitioner’s request for

8

appointment of counsel without prejudice to sua sponte appointing counsel if circumstances so

9

require.
This order terminates Dkt. No. 6.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: 1/7/2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2