Thornton v. Strainer

Filing 55

ORDER denying without prejudice 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 6/15/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

MICHAEL STRAINER, Warden,
Respondent.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-190-LAB(JMA)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [DOC.
NO. 39]

16
17

On January 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1]. On December 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a

19

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. No. 39]. The Court has considered and

20

denies Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice for the reasons

21

stated below.

22

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus

23

actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v.

24

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728

25

(9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant

26

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the Court “determines that the

27

interests of justice so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1995);

28

Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730

1
2

F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the Court conducts

3

an evidentiary hearing on the Petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d

4

at 728; Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. §

5

2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is

6

necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah, 18 F.3d

7

at 573. Here, there is no current indication that an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

8
9

In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not
entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that

10

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d

11

at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. A due process violation may occur in the

12

absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. In addition,

13

the appointment of counsel may be necessary if the petitioner has such limited

14

education that he or she is incapable of presenting his or her claims. Hawkins v.

15

Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970).

16

At this stage of the proceedings, there is no indication that appointment of

17

counsel is required to prevent a due process violation. Neither is there an indication

18

that the issues are too complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims.

19

Thus, at this time, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the

20

appointment of counsel.

21
22
23
24

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 15, 2012

25
Jan M. Adler
U.S. Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2