Davis v. State of California ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAVIN B. DAVIS, Case No.: 19cv2263-LAB-MDD 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. APPOINT COUNSEL 14 STEPHANIE RUE and ADOLFO GONZALEZ, 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 4] 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an Amended 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 19 7). On November 29, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of 20 Counsel. (ECF No. 4). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion is 21 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 22 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal 23 habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 24 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 25 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court 1 3006A(a)(2)(B) (2014); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 2 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The interests of 3 justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an 4 evidentiary hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181; Knaubert, 5 791 F.2d at 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel 6 is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Knaubert, 791 7 F.2d at 728 (citing Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1234). 8 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas 9 relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a 10 particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due 11 process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 12 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970)); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. The Ninth 13 Circuit considers the clarity and coherence of a petitioner’s district court 14 pleadings to determine the necessity of appointment of counsel; if clear and 15 understandable, the court typically finds appointment of counsel 16 unnecessary. See LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment of 18 counsel is required to prevent a due process violation. Petitioner’s Amended 19 Petition show that he has “a good understanding of the issues and the ability 20 to present forcefully and coherently his contentions.” Id. Although Petitioner 21 claims he needs assistance due to the complexity of the case, there is no 22 indication that the issues are too complex or that Petitioner is incapable of 23 presenting his claims. (ECF No. 4 at 6). For example, Petitioner has not 24 demonstrated facts which show that he has an insufficient grasp of his case 25 or the legal issues involved, nor has he demonstrated an inadequate ability to 26 articulate the factual basis of his claim. (See generally, id.). Therefore, the 1 ||counsel at this time.! Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED 2 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2019 Mitel » [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary in the future, the Court will require appointment of counsel at that time.