Mohamed v. Tampkins

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 11/30/2015. (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

EBRAHIM MUSSA MOHAMED,

12
13
14
15

Civil No.

15-CV-0704-BEN (WVG)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

CYNTHIA TAMPKINS, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested appointment of counsel to
represent him on appeal of this Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 15). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s request
20

for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
21

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions
22

by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. Lewis, 801
23

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986).
24

However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may
25

obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so require.”
26

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th
27

Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit,
28

“[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless
-1-

1

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

2

process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29.

3

Here, Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date and Petitioner has a good

4

grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such circumstances, a district court does

5

not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel as it is

6

simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

7

Cir. 1987). Moreover, Petitioner has not provided any justification supporting his request. His

8

request for counsel merely states that he has no assets or income. Therefore, although Petitioner

9

has submitted evidence that he has no funds to pay for counsel, he has failed to articulate any

10

reason that justice may require appointment of counsel. Therefore at this stage of the

11

proceedings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of

12

counsel.

13

For the above-stated reasons, the “interests of justice” in this matter do not compel the

14

appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is

15

DENIED without prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

DATED: November 30, 2015

20
21
22

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-