Valles v. Allison

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 1/11/22. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

Case 3:21-cv-00819-GPC-WVG Document 17 Filed 01/11/22 PageID.589 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREW VALLES,

Case No.: 21-CV-819-GPC-WVG
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary,
Respondent.

15
16

I.

17

BACKGROUND

18

On January 3, 2022, Andrew Valles (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Appoint

19

Counsel. (Doc. No. 15.) In doing so, Petitioner moved the Court for an order appointing

20

counsel to act on his behalf and noted the Court “has already approved the Plaintiff’s

21

application to file the matter in forma pauperis.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner made no other

22

representations in his filing.

23

II.

APPLICABLE LAW

24

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

25

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

26

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728

27

(9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to

28

28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the
1
21-CV-819-GPC-WVG

Case 3:21-cv-00819-GPC-WVG Document 17 Filed 01/11/22 PageID.590 Page 2 of 2

1

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona v.

2

Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234

3

(9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief

4

are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate

5

that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d

6

at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29.

7

III.

DISCUSSION

8

Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner

9

offers no grounds in support of his Motion, thus leaving the Court with no basis to consider

10

granting his request. For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s

11

Motion to Appoint Counsel.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2022

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
21-CV-819-GPC-WVG