Chandler v. Cate et al

Filing 39

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 37 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

JANINE SIMONE CHANDLER,
Petitioner,

12
v.

13
14
15

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
and VELDA DOBSON-DAVIS, Warden,
Respondents.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-02452-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON
APPEAL

17
On September 18, 2012, the Court denied Petitioner Janine Simone Chandler’s
18
19

(“Petitioner” or “Chandler”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. See ECF No. 33 (“Order”).
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal. ECF No. 37 (“Mot.”).

20
Having considered Petitioner’s submission and the relevant law, and for good cause shown, the
21

Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal.

22
I.

BACKGROUND

23
In 2006, Chandler was convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of
24
attempted premeditated murder and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life. See
25
ECF No. 2, Ex. A. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California
26
Supreme Court denied review. See id.; id. at Ex. C. The California Supreme Court then denied
27
Chandler’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. See id. at Ex. D.
28
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02452-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL

1

On June 3, 2010, Chandler filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1. The Petition brings claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and

3

denial of the right to confront witnesses under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

4

U.S. Constitution. Id. On September 18, 2012, the Court denied Chandler’s Habeas Petition,

5

denied Chandler’s Motion for Hearing, and denied Chandler’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. See

6

Order, ECF No. 33. The instant Motion before the Court is Petitioner’s third request that counsel

7

be appointed to represent her in this matter. See ECF Nos. 1, 30, 37. Petitioner is currently

8

incarcerated at Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, California. See Order at 1.

9

II.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ANALYSIS
Petitioner moves to appoint Attorney Carol Strickman to represent her on appeal pursuant

11

to Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1(b). Mot. at 1; 9th Cir. R. 4-1(b). Rule 4-1(b) applies to the appointment

12

of counsel in criminal appeals, and grants the district court discretion to determine whether

13

appointment of counsel is warranted. 9th Cir. R. 4-1(b) (“[The motion for] appointment of counsel

14

shall be presented to the district court . . . . If the district court finds that appointment of counsel is

15

warranted . . . .”).
As stated in the Court’s previous Orders Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel, see

16
17

ECF Nos. 7, 33, a district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the

18

court determines that the interests of justice so require” and such person is “financially unable to

19

obtain representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas

20

corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case

21

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis,

22

801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (amended).
In the Order Denying Chandler’s Habeas Petition, the Court found that “[t]he issues in this

23
24

case remain well developed, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.”

25

Order at 29. The Court also found that the merits decidedly failed to satisfy the rigorous legal

26

standard for challenging a state court’s adjudication of a claim. Id. at 7.1 Chandler does not set

27

1

28

A plaintiff must establish that the state court’s adjudication: “(1) resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based
2
Case No.: 10-CV-02452-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL

1

forth any basis for which the Court should alter its prior findings. Accordingly, the Court finds that

2

the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.

3

III.

4
5

CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel on Appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: July 12, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court
proceeding.” ECF No. 33 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)).
3
Case No.: 10-CV-02452-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL