Adams v. Carrosco et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/27/10. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2010)

Adams v. Carrosco et al

Doc. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel in this action. However, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, authorizes a district court 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. The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. The courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners;
Order Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.10\Adams369atty.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) FERNANDO GONZALEZ, Acting Warden, ) ) ) Respondent. ) JESSE ADAMS, No. C 10-0369 LHK (PR) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(4) cases likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. At this time, appointment of counsel is not mandated, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte reconsideration should the developments of this case dictate otherwise. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: __8/27/2010_____________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

Order Denying Request for Appointment of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.10\Adams369atty.wpd

2