Hurlbert v. Muniz et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 18 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 11/24/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GRANT DALE HURLBERT,

Case No. 15cv752 AJB (PCL)

12
Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

13
v.
14
MUNIZ et al.,

(Doc. 18)

15
Respondent.
16
17
18

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner requests the Court appoint counsel to assist him in his habeas case because he

19 is inept to handle legal matters. (Doc. 28.)
20

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

21 by state prisoners. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991 (citing Pennsylvania v.
22 Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“The right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of
23 right, and no further”); Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that there
24 currently exists no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings); Chaney
25 v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, courts may appoint counsel for
26 financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where “the
27 interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. Whether
28 or not to appoint counsel is a matter left to the court’s discretion, unless an evidentiary hearing is
necessary. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the

1 interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary
2 hearing on the petition). “In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the
3 district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the
4 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”
5 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
6

Here, Petitioner has been able to articulate his habeas claims to this Court. He also has

7 not shown that he is likely to be successful on the merits. Thus, Petitioner’s motion for
8 appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 DATE: November 24, 2015
11
Peter C. Lewis
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

12
13
14
15 cc:

The Honorable Battaglia
All Parties and Counsel of Record

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15cv752 AJB (PCL)

2