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

Case 5:07-cv-00432-RMW

Document 13

Filed 05/27/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
*E-FILED - 5/27/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11

CHARLES BOLDEN,
12

Petitioner,
13 14

vs. JAMES E. TILTON, et al.

15

Respondents.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 07-0432 RMW (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 11 & 12)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee. Respondent has been ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on petitioner's cognizable claims. Petitioner has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. The Sixth

Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if "the court determines that the interests of justice so require," the courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule. Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986);
Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.07\Bolden432denatty.wpd

1

Case 5:07-cv-00432-RMW

Document 13

Filed 05/27/2008

Page 2 of 2

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

Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965). Petitioner has thus far been able to adequately present his claims for relief. Respondent has been ordered to produce the state record, which may include petitioner's state appellate briefs prepared by counsel. No evidentiary hearing appears necessary in this case, nor are any other extraordinary circumstances apparent. Accordingly, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. Petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 11 & 12) are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:
5/22/08

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.07\Bolden432denatty.wpd

2