Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP

Document 15

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On July 29, 2008, Petitioner Tony Mabry (hereafter "Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 26, 2008, Petitioner filed a Motion for v. L. E. SCRIBNER, Respondent. TONY MABRY, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08-0965-BEN(LSP) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. # 14) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Appointment of Counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); McCleskey v.

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191,

1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners

seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court "determines that the interests of justice so require.'" 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1995); Terrovona

1

08CV0965

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP

Document 15

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition.

Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177;

evidentiary hearing is necessary.

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573. In the Ninth Circuit, "[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations." at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. Chaney, 801 F.2d

A due process violation may

occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. In addition, the appointment of counsel may be necessary if the petitioner has such limited education that he or she is incapable of presenting his or her claims. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). In the Eighth Circuit, "[t]o determine whether appointment of counsel is required for habeas petitioners with non-frivolous Hawkins v.

claims, a district court should consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant factors." Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d at 573 (citing Battle v.

Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990)); Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471; Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1993); Smith v.

2

08CV0965

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP

Document 15

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Groose, 998 F.2d 1439, 1442 (8th Cir. 1993); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986). Since these factors are useful in determining whether due process requires the appointment of counsel, they are considered to the extent possible based on the record before the Court. Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. Here,

From the

face of the Petition, filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a good grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such

circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a state prisoner's request for appointment of counsel as it is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). See LaMere v.

At this stage of the

proceedings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. The Court also notes that "[w]here the issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for courtappointed counsel." Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471; McCann v. Armontrout,

973 F.2d 655, 661 (8th Cir. 1992); Travis v. Lockhart, 787 F.2d 409, 411 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying § 2254 habeas petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel where allegations were properly resolved on basis of state court record). At this stage of the

proceedings, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the issues involved on the basis of the state court record. "The procedures employed by the federal courts are highly protective of a pro se petitioner's rights. The district court is

required to construe a pro se petition more liberally than it would

3

08CV0965

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP

Document 15

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

construe a petition drafted by counsel."

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729

(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se complaint to less stringent standard) (per curiam)); Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1234. The Petition in this case was pleaded sufficiently to warrant this Court's order directing Respondent to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Petition. "The district court must scrutinize the state court record independently to determine whether the state court procedures and findings were sufficient." Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729; Richmond v.

Ricketts, 774 F.2d 957, 961 (9th Cir.1985); Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557, 558 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Turner v. Chavez, 586 Even when the district

F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam).

court accepts a state court's factual findings, it must render an independent legal conclusion regarding the legality of a petitioner's incarceration. (1985). Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 112

The district court's legal conclusion, moreover, will Hayes v. Kincheloe, 784 F.2d

receive de novo appellate review. 1434, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986).

The assistance counsel provides is valuable.

"An attorney

may narrow the issues and elicit relevant information from his or her client. An attorney may highlight the record and present to the court a reasoned analysis of the controlling law." F.2d at 729. Knaubert, 791

However, as the court in Knaubert noted: "unless an

evidentiary hearing is held, an attorney's skill in developing and presenting new evidence is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on Sumner v. Mata, 449 the state court record alone." U.S. 539, 545-57 (1981), and Id. (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)).

Because this Court denies Petitioner's motion for

4

08CV0965

Case 3:08-cv-00965-BEN-LSP

Document 15

Filed 08/27/2008

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

appointment of counsel, it must "review the record and render an independent legal conclusion." Id. Moreover, because the Court

does not appoint counsel, it must "inform itself of the relevant law. Therefore, the additional assistance provided by attorneys, Id.

while significant, is not compelling."

If an evidentiary hearing is required, Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed to a petitioner who qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Rule

8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1979). In addition, the Court may appoint counsel for the effective utilization of any discovery process. U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Rule 6(a), 28

For the above-stated reasons, the "interests

of justice" in this matter do not compel the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas U.S. Magistrate Judge

5

08CV0965