Polina v. Montgomery et al
Filing
14
ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (Dkt # 13 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 12/12/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GERONIMO POLINA,
Case No.: 16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB)
Petitioner,
12
13
14
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
v.
W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,
Respondent.
15
(ECF NO. 13)
16
17
18
19
20
21
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
22
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On December 8, 2016, Petitioner filed
23
a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 13.)
24
Previously, on October 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of
25
Counsel (ECF No. 9) that was denied without prejudice by this Court on November 1,
26
2016. (ECF No. 11.)
27
28
1
16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB)
1
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus
2
actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis,
3
801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.
4
1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28
5
U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the interests
6
of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (2014); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912
7
F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984).
8
The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an
9
evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at
10
728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when
11
no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181 (citing Bashor, 730 F.2d
12
at 1234); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing
13
becomes necessary in the future, the Court will require appointment of counsel at that time.
14
In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not
15
entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that
16
appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at
17
1196 (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970)); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at
18
728-29. The Ninth Circuit considers the clarity and coherence of a petitioner’s district
19
court pleadings to determine the necessity of appointment of counsel; if clear and
20
understandable, the court typically finds appointment of counsel unnecessary. See LaMere
21
v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, the Eighth Circuit notes that “[w]here
22
the issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district
23
court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel.”
24
Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); see Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181-82.
25
At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is
26
required to prevent a due process violation. There is no indication that the issues are too
27
complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. Also, there has been no
28
change in the case since the Court denied Petitioner’s first request for appointment of
2
16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB)
1
counsel last month that would warrant a different finding now. Petitioner claims lack of
2
knowledge of the law. However, that is not an exceptional circumstance that warrants
3
appointment of counsel. Further, as previously noted, based on the face of the Petition, it
4
appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved, and at
5
this point, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues involved on the
6
basis of the state court record. Therefore, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not
7
require the appointment of counsel at this time.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2016
_________________________
LOUISA S PORTER
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16-cv-02133-WQH (DHB)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?