Duclos v. Paramo

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 15 Motion for Appointment of Counsel without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 10/11/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)

Download PDF
1 F! L E D 2 If OCT |( PM 4:36 3 zmiuanH 4 BY: 5 U.S. DISTRICT CO'IPT uistrict or oaufusn!/ fate Of ->Hr 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC MCGHEE TONY DUCLOS, Petitioner, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE DANIEL PARAMO, Defendant. 15 [Doc. No. 15] 16 17 Petitioner McGhee Tony Duclos, (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se 18 and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before this Court is 19 petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [Doc. No. 15] Petitioner asks the Court 20 to appoint counsel for him because he has “limited access to a law library and other 21 materials necessary to facilitate proper legal research.” [Id. at p. 1]. Petitioner further 22 contends that he “is a layman at the law with little experience in the complex and confusing 23 methods of legal research, reasoning and writing.” [Id.] He “does not know what papers 24 should now be filed or submitted to the court or defendants, to further the litigation of this 25 case.” [Id.] For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED. 26 // 27 // 28 // l 3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC 1 DISCUSSION 2 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 3 actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467,495 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 4 999 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1993). District Courts have discretion to appoint counsel for a 5 “financially eligible person” when it determines “that the interests of justice so require.” 6 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Unless an evidentiary hearing is “warranted” under Rule 8(b) 7 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the decision to appoint counsel is 8 within the discretion of the District Court. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728- 9 729 (9th Cir. 1986). To determine whether to exercise this discretion, the District Court 10 “must focus on whether the denial of petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [would 11 amount] to a denial of due process.” Id. 12 Based on a review of the Petition and other filings in the case, the issues presented 13 are no more complex than those submitted by other habeas petitioners on a regular basis. 14 Thus far, petitioner has sufficiently represented himself. From the face of his Petition, it 15 appears petitioner has a good grasp of the legal and factual issues involved in his case. 16 Petitioner chose to resubmit briefing from his appeal to the California Court of Appeals, 17 which contains extensive arguments alleging errors made by the trial court. Under these 18 circumstances, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment 19 of counsel in petitioner’s case at this time. The Court will reconsider this decision if it is 20 determined at a later date that an evidentiary hearing is warranted or if other 21 circumstances indicate appointment of counsel is necessary to avoid a violation of due 22 process. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 2 3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC 1 CONCLUSION 2 Consequently, Petitioner Duclos’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 3 15] is DENIED without prejudice. 4 5 Dated: October //, 2017 6 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:16-cv-2230-H-KSC

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?