Long v. Pollard ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD ANDREW LONG, Case No.: 20cv1291-JLS(RBB) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 13 v. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF NO. 10] 14 MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Edward Andrew Long has filed a request for appointment of counsel 18 [ECF No. 10]. Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed for him because he has been 19 unable to access the law library or obtain legal books for seven months due to the 20 Coronavirus. (Id. at 3.) 21 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 22 actions by state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Even 23 so, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may 24 receive court-appointed counsel when "the interests of justice so require," as determined 25 by the court. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 26 2015); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990). The interests of 27 justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on 28 the petition. Id. at 1177; Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 1 || Appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing or discovery is 2 ||necessary. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177. 3 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not 4 || entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 5 || appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 6 || 1196. A due process violation may occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved 7 || are too complex for the petitioner. Id. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be 8 necessary if the petitioner is of such limited education as to be incapable of presenting his 9 |/claams. Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). When the issues 10 involved in a section 2254 habeas action can be properly resolved on the basis of the state 11 court record, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for 12 || appointment of counsel. Travis v. Lockhart, 787 F.2d 409, 411 (8th Cir. 1986). 13 In Petitioner's case, Long has sufficiently represented himself to date. It appears 14 || that he has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. At this stage of the 15 || proceedings, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues presented on 16 || the basis of the state court record. Under these circumstances, a district court does not 17 || abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel 18 || because it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 19 || F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require 21 ||the appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is, therefore, 22 || DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 28, 2020 rtoow~ Arle 25 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28