Contreras v. Hedgpeth

Filing 38

ORDER denying 36 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 3/29/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Contreras filed a Motion To Appoint Counsel on March 3, 2010. (Dkt No. 36.) Every CATE, Respondent . v. CONTRERAS, Petitioner, 08cv572 DMS (PCL) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. 36.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 defendant has an absolute right to counsel on direct appeal from a conviction, but there is no 19 constitutional right to appointment of counsel in state or federal collateral proceedings. Coleman 20 v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 756-57 (1991). Nevertheless, when a federal court "determines that the 21 interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person 22 who" is seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Bashor v. Risley, 23 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent petitioner 24 collaterally attacking a conviction is discretionary with the court, unless an evidentiary hearing is 25 necessary, in which case appointment of counsel is mandatory); see also Rules Governing § 2254 26 Cases, Rule 8(c). Courts consider various factors in exercising their discretion to decide whether 27 counsel should be appointed. Those factors include the factual or legal complexity of the petition, 28 the likelihood of success on the merits, and the petitioner's understanding of issues and capability
Case No. 08cv572 DMS (PCL)

1

1 to investigate and to present the claims himself. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 2 1987) (no abuse of discretion to deny appointment of counsel when district court pleadings 3 demonstrated petitioner's "good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and 4 coherently his contentions"). Contreras has extensively articulated his arguments and authority, and 5 his claims present no unusual factual or legal complexity. The motion is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 DATED: March 29, 2010 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. 08cv572 DMS (PCL)

Peter C. Lewis U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court

2