Cofield v. McDonald

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 VINCENT E. COFIELD, 8 Petitioner, 9 v. 10 WARDEN MIKE MCDONALD, 11 Respondent. 12 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 12-4556 LHK (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Docket No. 9.) Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 15 However, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 16 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 17 authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if “the court 18 determines that the interests of justice so require,” the courts have made appointment of counsel 19 the exception rather than the rule. Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a 20 particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. 21 See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). At this time, appointment of counsel 22 is not mandated, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Accordingly, 23 Petitioner’s request is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 24 reconsideration should the developments of this case dictate otherwise. 25 This order terminates docket number 9. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 DATED: 12/13/12 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge Order Denying Motion for Appt. of Counsel G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Cofield556denycounsel.wpd

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?