Greene v. Johnson

Filing 7

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 8/8/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

KOMOA GREENE,
v.

Petitioner,

D.K. JOHNSON, Warden,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12CV1824-BEN (BLM)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
[ECF No. 3]

17

On July 23, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

18

moved this Court to appoint counsel. ECF No. 3. In support of her motion, Petitioner states that

19

she “has no legal training and limited opportunities to educate . . . herself in” this matter and

20

that she is “unable to write legal argument, or to research and identify the legal authority

21

relevant to the petition’s claims.” Id. at 1. Petitioner therefore “requests that counsel be

22

appointed in this proceeding.” Id. Having considered the request submitted by Petitioner and

23

the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion for appointment

24

counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

25

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

26

by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

27

453, 459 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that there currently exists no constitutional right to appointment

28

of counsel in habeas proceedings): Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986).
12CV1824-BEN (BLM)

1

However, courts may appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief

2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so

3

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir.

4

1990) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (“Indigent state prisoners

5

applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances

6

of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process

7

violations.”). Whether or not to appoint counsel is a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless

8

an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 729-30 (9th Cir.

9

1986) (explaining that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court

10
11

conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition.).
The court’s discretion to appoint counsel may be exercised only under “exceptional
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).1

12

circumstances.”

“A finding of

13

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

14

and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

15

legal issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

16

before reaching a decision.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

17

The Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) submitted by

18

Petitioner in this case and finds that Petitioner has provided a thorough and clear recitation of

19

her contentions. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner not only has a sufficient grasp of her

20

individual claims for habeas relief and the legal issues involved in those claims, but also that

21

Petitioner is able to articulate those claims adequately without legal assistance. Under such

22

circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request

23

for appointment of counsel as it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere

24

v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s denial of request for

25

appointment of counsel where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding of

26

the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions”). The Court also

27

finds that while Petitioner has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim for federal habeas relief,

28
1

The Terrell court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), but the legislature subsequently renumbered this section as
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
12CV1824-BEN (BLM)
2

1

she has not established a likelihood of success on the merits. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

2

At this stage of the pleadings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require

3

the appointment of counsel and that this habeas proceeding does not present “exceptional

4

circumstances” justifying the appointment of legal counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Request for

5

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

DATED: August 8, 2012

10

BARBARA L. MAJOR
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

12CV1824-BEN (BLM)