Martinez v. Unnamed Respondents, No. 3:2013cv01457 - Document 9 (S.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 8 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Court received a letter from Petitioner requesting that an attorney be appointed for him. (Doc. No. 8 ). The Court construes the letter to be a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is Denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 10/24/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martinez v. Unnamed Respondents Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOAQUIN MURRIETTA MARTINEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 CAPT. PENA, et al., 15 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No.13-1457-BTM(WVG) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. # 8) 16 17 18 On October 22, 2013, the Court received a letter 19 from Petitioner requesting that an attorney be appointed 20 for him. (Doc. No. 8). The Court construes the letter to 21 be a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 22 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend 23 to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. 24 McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); 25 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. 26 Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 27 financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation 1 Chaney v. 13CV1457 Dockets.Justia.com 1 whenever the court “determines that the interests of 2 justice 3 Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 4 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 5 1984); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 6 1994). so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 7 The interests of justice require appointment of 8 counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing on 9 the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 10 F.2d at 728; Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th 11 Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 12 appointment of counsel is discretionary when no eviden- 13 tiary hearing is necessary. 14 Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573. 2254. The Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; 15 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners 16 applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed 17 counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case 18 indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent 19 due 20 Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. 21 occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are 22 too complex for the petitioner. 23 ment of counsel may be necessary if the petitioner has 24 such limited education that he or she is incapable of 25 presenting his or her claims. 26 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). 27 28 process In the violations.” Eighth Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; A due process violation may Circuit, In addition, the appoint- Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 “[t]o determine whether appointment of counsel is required for habeas petitioners 2 13CV1457 1 with non-frivolous claims, a district court should con- 2 sider 3 complexity 4 investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant 5 factors.” 6 Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990)); 7 Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471; Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 671 8 (8th Cir. 1993); Smith v. Groose, 998 F.2d 1439, 1442 (8th 9 Cir. 1993); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 10 11 the legal of complexity the case, of the the case, petitioner’s the factual ability to Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d at 573 (citing (8th Cir. 1986). Since these factors are useful in determining 12 whether due process requires the appointment of counsel, 13 they are considered to the extent possible based on the 14 record before the Court. Here, Petitioner has sufficiently 15 represented himself to date. From the face of the Peti- 16 tion, filed pro se, it appears that Petitioner has a good 17 grasp of this case and the legal issues involved. Under 18 such circumstances, a district court does not abuse its 19 discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for 20 appointment of counsel as it is simply not warranted by 21 the interests of justice. 22 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). At this stage of the proceed- 23 ings, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not 24 require 25 tioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel in this regard 26 is DENIED without prejudice. 27 28 the The appointment Court also See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d of notes counsel. that Therefore, “[w]here the Peti- issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the 3 13CV1457 1 state court record, a district court does not abuse its 2 discretion 3 counsel.” 4 973 F.2d 655, 661 (8th Cir. 1992); Travis v. Lockhart, 787 5 F.2d 409, 411 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding that 6 district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 7 § 2254 habeas petitioner’s motion for appointment of 8 counsel where allegations were properly resolved on basis 9 of state court record). in denying a request for court-appointed Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471; McCann v. Armontrout, At this stage of the proceedings, 10 it appears the Court will be able to properly resolve the 11 issues involved on the basis of the state court record. 12 “The procedures employed by the federal courts are 13 highly protective of a pro se petitioner’s rights. The 14 district court is required to construe a pro se petition 15 more liberally than it would construe a petition drafted 16 by counsel.” 17 Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se complaint 18 to less stringent standard) (per curiam)); Bashor, 730 19 F.2d at 1234. 20 sufficiently 21 Respondent to file an answer or other responsive pleading 22 to the Petition. Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729 (citing Haines v. The Petition in this case was pleaded to warrant this Court’s order directing 23 “The district court must scrutinize the state court 24 record independently to determine whether the state court 25 procedures and findings were sufficient.” 26 F.2d at 729; Richmond v. Ricketts, 774 F.2d 957, 961 (9th 27 Cir.1985); 28 Cir.1979) (per Knaubert, 791 Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557, 558 (9th curiam); Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 4 13CV1457 1 112 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam). 2 court accepts a state court’s factual findings, it must 3 render 4 legality of a petitioner’s incarceration. 5 Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 112 (1985). 6 legal conclusion, moreover, will receive de novo appellate 7 review. 8 1986). an independent legal Even when the district conclusion regarding the Miller v. The district court’s Hayes v. Kincheloe, 784 F.2d 1434, 1436 (9th Cir. The assistance counsel provides is valuable. 9 “An 10 attorney may narrow the issues and elicit relevant infor- 11 mation from his or her client. 12 the record and present to the court a reasoned analysis of 13 the controlling law.” 14 ever, as the court in Knaubert noted: “unless an eviden- 15 tiary hearing is held, an attorney’s skill in developing 16 and presenting new evidence is largely superfluous; the 17 district court is entitled to rely on 18 record alone.” 19 545-57 (1981), and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). 20 denies Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, it 21 must “review the record and render an independent legal 22 conclusion.” 23 appoint counsel, it must “inform itself of the relevant 24 law. 25 attorneys, while significant, is not compelling.” An attorney may highlight Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. How- the state court Id. (citing Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, Id. Since this Court Moreover, since the Court does not Therefore, the additional assistance provided by Id. 26 If an evidentiary hearing is required, Rule 8(c) of 27 the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that 28 counsel be appointed to a petitioner who qualifies under 5 13CV1457 1 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. 2 § 2254; see Wood v. Wainwright, 597 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 3 1979). 4 effective utilization of any discovery process. Rule 6(a), 5 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. For the above-stated reasons, the 6 “interests of justice” in this matter do not compel the 7 appointment of counsel. 8 for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. In addition, the Court may appoint counsel for the Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion 10 11 DATED: October 24, 2013 12 13 Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 13CV1457
]]>
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.
