Guerra v. Montgomerry ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUAN M. GUERRA, Case No. 19-cv-07165-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 11 10 MONTGOMERRY, 11 Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner, an inmate at Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of 14 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 27, 2019, the Court ordered 15 respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. Dkt. No. 4. On February 4, 2020, 16 respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as unexhausted. Dkt. No. 8. Petitioner has been 17 granted an extension of time to April 9, 2020 to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 18 No. 10. Petitioner has requested that the Court appoint counsel, arguing that counsel is necessary 19 because he is proceeding pro se, because he lacks the knowledge and ability to articulate 20 arguments, because he has been transferred to Santa Clara County Jail where he has no access to 21 the law library, and because the issues in this case are complex. Dkt. No. 11. 22 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See 23 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Section 3006A(a)(2)(B) of the United 24 States Code, title 18, authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner 25 whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. The decision to appoint counsel is within the 26 discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert, 27 1 appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule by limiting it to: (1) capital cases; 2 (2) cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual 3 questions; (3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases 4 likely to require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See 5 generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383- 6 86 (2d ed. 1994). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case 7 indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney, 801 8 F.2d at 1196; Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). 9 Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is denied because the record before the 10 Court does not indicate that justice requires the appointment of counsel. The federal habeas 11 petition has adequately presented the legal claims, and demonstrated a good understanding of the 12 issues. The pending motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies is straightforward and 13 not complex. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED without 14 prejudice to the Court sua sponte appointing counsel if circumstances so require. See, e.g., 15 LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in denying 16 appointment of counsel where pleadings illustrated that petitioner had good understanding of 17 issues and ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions); Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1234 18 (no abuse of discretion in denying request for appointment of counsel where petitioner was over 19 60 years of age and had no background in law, but he thoroughly presented issues in petition and 20 accompanying memorandum). 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES petitioner’s request for appointment of 22 counsel. The Court will sua sponte grant petitioner an extension of time to file his opposition to 23 the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state court remedies. By April 23, 2020, petitioner 24 shall file his opposition to the respondent’s motion to dismiss. Respondent shall his reply in 25 support of his motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days of the date the opposition is filed. 26 // 27 // 1 This order terminates Dkt. No. 11. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: March 25, 2020 4 Abppued 3 bbl |p. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 qa 16 = 17 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28