-WVG Woodall v. Neotti et al, No. 3:2010cv01127 - Document 43 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 41 Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 12/9/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-WVG Woodall v. Neotti et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN JAMES ALLEN WOODALL, 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, 13 v. 14 GEORGE A. NEOTTI, Warden, 15 Respondent. Civil No. 10-1127-BEN(WVG) ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. # 41) 16 17 On May 24, 2010, Petitioner Shawn James Allen Woodall 18 (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion 19 for Appointment of Counsel. On July 27, 2010, the Court denied 20 Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. On December 7, 2010, 21 Petitioner filed a Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 22 Petitioner’s first Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 requested 24 represent him in this proceeding because Mr. Hermansen was appointed 25 to represent him in an appeal from an order denying a separate 26 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Further, Petitioner alleged that 27 he required counsel to be appointed for him because the case was that Attorney Kurt David Hermansen be appointed to 28 1 10cv1127 Dockets.Justia.com 1 complex, and an appointed attorney could more effectively obtain and 2 use discovery in this proceeding than he could. 3 In Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel, 4 Petitioner cites the same reasons for his request. Further, he adds 5 that he can not afford an attorney to represent him in this 6 proceeding and that he has limited law library access at the prison 7 where he is incarcerated. 8 9 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. 10 Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); 11 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th 12 Cir. 13 seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representa- 14 tion whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so 15 require.’” 16 v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 17 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 18 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). 19 1986). However, Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, financially eligible habeas petitioners 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1995); Terrovona The interests of justice require appointment of counsel when 20 the 21 Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah v. 22 Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. 23 § 24 evidentiary hearing is necessary. 25 Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573. court 2254. conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; 26 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying 27 for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the 28 circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel 2 10cv1127 1 is necessary to prevent due process violations.” 2 at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. 3 occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too 4 complex for the petitioner. In addition, the appointment of counsel 5 may be necessary if the petitioner has such limited education that 6 he or she is incapable of presenting his or her claims. 7 Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). 8 9 Chaney, 801 F.2d A due process violation may Hawkins v. In the Eighth Circuit, “[t]o determine whether appointment of counsel is required for habeas petitioners with non-frivolous 10 claims, a district court should consider the legal complexity of the 11 case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner’s ability 12 to investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant 13 factors.” 14 Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990)); Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 15 471; Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1993); Smith v. 16 Groose, 998 F.2d 1439, 1442 (8th Cir. 1993); Johnson v. Williams, 17 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986). Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d at 573 (citing Battle v. 18 Since these factors are useful in determining whether due 19 process requires the appointment of counsel, they are considered to 20 the extent possible based on the record before the Court. Here, 21 Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. From the 22 face of the Petition filed pro se, and from other documents that 23 Petitioner has filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a good 24 grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under such 25 circumstances, a district court does not abuse its discretion in 26 denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel as it 27 is simply not warranted by the interests of justice. 28 Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). At this stage of the 3 See LaMere v. 10cv1127 1 proceedings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not 2 require the appointment of counsel. 3 The Court also notes that “[w]here the issues involved can be 4 properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district 5 court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for court- 6 appointed counsel.” 7 973 F.2d 655, 661 (8th Cir. 1992); Travis v. Lockhart, 787 F.2d 409, 8 411 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding that district court did 9 not abuse its discretion in denying § 2254 habeas petitioner’s 10 motion for appointment of counsel where allegations were properly 11 resolved on basis of state court record). 12 proceedings, it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve 13 the issues involved on the basis of the state court record. 14 Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471; McCann v. Armontrout, At this stage of the “The procedures employed by the federal courts are highly 15 protective of a pro se petitioner’s rights. 16 required to construe a pro se petition more liberally than it would 17 construe a petition drafted by counsel.” 18 (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se 19 complaint to less stringent standard) (per curiam)); Bashor, 730 20 F.2d at 1234. The Petition in this case was pleaded sufficiently to 21 warrant this Court’s order directing Respondent to file an answer or 22 other responsive pleading to the Petition. The district court is Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729 23 “The district court must scrutinize the state court record 24 independently to determine whether the state court procedures and 25 findings were sufficient.” 26 Ricketts, 774 F.2d 957, 961 (9th Cir.1985); Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 27 F.2d 557, 558 (9th Cir.1979) (per 28 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam). Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729; Richmond v. 4 curiam); Turner v. Chavez, 586 Even when the district 10cv1127 1 court accepts a state court’s factual findings, it must render an 2 independent legal conclusion regarding the legality of a peti- 3 tioner’s incarceration. 4 (1985). 5 receive de novo appellate review. 6 1434, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986). 7 Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 112 The district court’s legal conclusion, moreover, will Hayes v. Kincheloe, 784 F.2d The assistance counsel provides is valuable. “An attorney 8 may narrow the issues and elicit relevant information from his or 9 her client. An attorney may highlight the record and present to the 10 court a reasoned analysis of the controlling law.” 11 F.2d at 729. 12 evidentiary hearing is held, an attorney’s skill in developing and 13 presenting new evidence is largely superfluous; the district court 14 is entitled to rely on the state court record alone.” 15 Sumner U.S. 16 § 2254(d)). 17 appointment of counsel, it must “review the record and render an 18 independent legal conclusion.” 19 does not appoint counsel, it must “inform itself of the relevant 20 law. 21 while significant, is not compelling.” v. Knaubert, 791 However, as the court in Knaubert noted: “unless an Mata, 449 539, 545-57 (1981), and Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. Because this Court denies Petitioner’s motion for Id. Moreover, because the Court Therefore, the additional assistance provided by attorneys, Id. 22 If an evidentiary hearing is required, Rule 8(c) of the Rules 23 Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed to 24 a petitioner who qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 25 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 26 (5th Cir. 1979). In addition, the Court may appoint counsel for the 27 effective utilization of any discovery process. 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Rule Rule 6(a), 28 For the above-stated reasons, the “interests 5 10cv1127 1 of justice” in this matter do not compel the appointment of counsel. 2 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is 3 DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: December 9, 2010 7 8 Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 10cv1127
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
