Lewis v. Unknown ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD R. LEWIS Case No.: 20cv1042-MMA (MSB) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 13 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF NO. 7] 14 UNKNOWN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On August 3, 2020, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion asking the Court 19 to appoint counsel. (See ECF No. 7; see also ECF No. 6.) Petitioner claims that his case 20 in complex and because of his “limited intellectu[a]l ability and understanding,” he will 21 not have meaningful access to the courts without court-appointed counsel. (Id. at 2.) 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 24 actions by state prisoners. Habeas Corpus Res. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 816 F.3d 25 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that there is no federal constitutional right to 26 appointment of counsel in postconviction collateral attacks on a conviction or sentence 27 in state or federal court). Courts may, however, appoint counsel for financially eligible 2 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 3 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus 4 relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case 5 indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.”). 6 Courts have discretion in determining whether to appoint counsel, unless an evidentiary 7 hearing is necessary. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1990); 8 Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 9 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts may exercise their discretion to appoint 10 counsel for indigent civil litigants only in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. 11 Corp. Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). When assessing 12 whether exceptional circumstances exist, courts must evaluate “the likelihood of the 13 plaintiff’s success on the merits” and “the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in 14 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 15 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Both of these factors must be reviewed before 16 deciding whether to appoint counsel, and neither factor is individually dispositive. 17 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 The Court finds that Petitioner has not established the required exceptional 20 circumstances for appointment of counsel. Despite his claimed limited intellectual 21 ability, the only evidence before the Court regarding his abilities demonstrates that the 22 Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. Petitioner has submitted the 23 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 3] and the instant motion for appointment 24 of counsel. Petitioner’s filings indicate that he has a sufficient grasp of his case and the 25 legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate the grounds for his Petition. See 26 LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s denial of 27 request for appointment of counsel, where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had “a 1 || contentions.”); see also Taa v. Chase Home Fin., No. 5:11—CV-—00554 EJD, 2012 WL 2 ||507430, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012) (noting a pro se litigant’s lack of legal training 3 || and poverty do not constitute exceptional circumstances, because many other litigants 4 || face similar difficulties when proceeding pro se). The Court also concludes that at this 5 || stage in the proceedings, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 6 ||merits. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 7 Additionally, the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel in 8 || this case. Courts are required to construe a petition filed by a pro se litigant more 9 || liberally than a petition drafted by counsel. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. “The district 10 ||} court must scrutinize the state court record independently to determine whether the 11 ||state court procedures and findings were sufficient.” Id. (citations omitted). The 12 || Petition contains claims that the Court will be able to properly resolve by reviewing the 13 || state court record independently, and the “additional assistance provided by attorneys, 14 || while significant, is not compelling.” See id. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 15 || appointment of counsel is not warranted. 16 Ill. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's 18 || motion for appointment of counsel. See LaMere, 827 F.2d at 626 (finding that district 19 || court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel, where the pleadings 20 || established that petitioner understood the issues and was able to present his 21 || contentions). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: August 7, 2020 Sx. 24 4 L <—{—\. 3s Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28