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)

Download PDF
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

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?