Storey v. Paramo
Filing
32
ORDER Overruling Objections to Denial of Counsel. The Court finds that the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time, and overrules Storey's objections to Judge Skomal's denial of appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/19/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DONTAZE A. STOREY,
Case No.: 17cv23-LAB (BGS)
Petitioner,
11
12
v.
13
ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTIONS TO DENIAL OF
COUNSEL
DAINEL PARAMO,
Respondent.
14
15
16
After Magistrate Judge Bernard Skomal denied Petitioner Dontaze Storey’s
17
requests for appointment of counsel, Storey objected to Skomal’s order within the
18
deadline set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 1 Judge Skomal’s order correctly sets forth the
19
standards for appointment of counsel in federal habeas cases such as this one, and the
20
Court applies those standards without repeating them here.
Storey’s objections point out that he is being assisted by another inmate, that
21
22
several of his documents were accepted by discrepancy order, and that the California
23
Supreme Court denied his petition as improperly pled. None of those are reasons for
24
appointment of counsel, however.
25
26
27
28
1
Storey’s objections are styled as his objections to Judge Skomal’s report and
recommendation, but the objections address only Judge Skomal’s separate order denying
appointment of counsel.
1
17cv23-LAB (BGS)
1
The fact that Storey is being assisted by a “jailhouse lawyer” means he is receiving
2
some assistance already. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 823 (1977) (citing Johnson
3
v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (recognizing jailhouse lawyers as providing legal
4
assistance necessary to enable pro se prisoners to prepare and file habeas petitions). The
5
assistance of “jailhouse lawyers” is extremely common, and reliance on one does not by
6
itself suggest that the petitioner needs appointed counsel.
7
The discrepancy orders Storey refers to point out violations of rules. But pro se
8
litigants’ violation of rules is not uncommon, and the Court is mindful of its “duty to
9
ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim
10
due to ignorance of technical procedural requirements.” See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
11
Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). So far, none of the errors pointed out in the
12
discrepancy orders have been prejudicial to Storey, and there is no likelihood they will
13
be.
14
Finally, the California Supreme Court’s denial of pro se prisoners’ habeas petitions
15
as inadequately pled or improperly litigated is common, and does not indicate any
16
unusual circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel in this case. To the
17
extent Storey may be suggesting that he needs counsel to assist him with his state
18
petition, the Court has no power to help him with that; the appointment of counsel in state
19
court proceedings is a matter for the state court. See In re Sanders, 21 Cal.4th 697, 717
20
n.11 (1999) (citation omitted) (briefly outlining requirements for appointment of counsel
21
in noncapital habeas cases).
22
The Court finds that the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of
23
counsel at this time, and OVERRULES Storey’s objections to Judge Skomal’s denial of
24
appointment of counsel.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: October 19, 2017
27
28
2
17cv23-LAB (BGS)
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?