Spillard v. Cueva ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EVERETT L. SPILLARD, II, Case No. 20-02430 BLF (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. 13 14 CUEVA, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 (Docket No. 13) 17 18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. On August 13, 2021, the 20 Court set a briefing schedule on the cognizable claims, directing Respondent to file an 21 answer or dispositive motion within sixty days of the order. Dkt. No. 9. Respondent’s 22 answer is currently due no later than January 11, 2022. Petitioner has filed a motion for 23 appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 13. 24 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 25 See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 26 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within 27 the discretion of the district court. Id.; Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), 1 || necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and Petitioner’s circumstances are not so 2 || exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for 3 || appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 4 || reconsideration should an evidentiary hearing be necessary to review the merits of 5 || Petitioner’s claims. 6 This order terminates Docket No. 13. 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. g || Dated: _ December 29, 2021 heh bua homey) 9 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 10 11 13 14 o 15 16 Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 95 Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.21\02430Spillard_deny.atty.docx 26 27