Opinion
Case No.: 17CV608 GPC (BGS)
07-21-2017
RAMON DEL RIO, Petitioner, v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 7]
Petitioner Ramon Del Rio has filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner indicates that he is elderly, suffers from back pain, takes narcotics that cloud his thinking, and that he cannot properly present his claim due to the complexity of the issues involved. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner's federal habeas Petition challenges a loss of credits and requests that the rules violation that resulted in the credit loss be expunged and the credits be restored. (ECF No. 1 at 12-13.)
The Court uses the electronic pagination for ease of accurate reference to the record.
As Petitioner's Request acknowledges, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). In the Ninth Circuit, "[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus 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." Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29.
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); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990). The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is required. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
"In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors." Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1994). Courts also consider the clarity and coherence of a petitioner's district court pleadings in determining the necessity of appointment of counsel. LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987.) Additionally, "[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 court-appointed counsel." Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.
Here, there is no indication that the issues are particularly complex or that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his claims. The Petition is brief, but articulates the basis for Petitioner's claim that he should not have been found guilty of a rules violation or lost credits as a result. Petitioner has also attached numerous exhibits to his Petition in support of his claim that the Court will review in considering his Petition. Additionally, it does not appear that the Court's review will extend beyond the state court record, than an evidentiary hearing will be required, or that that appointment of counsel is necessary to avoid a due process violation.
The Court also notes that "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 construe a petition drafted by counsel." Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729 (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) and Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Court also notes that Petitioner will have had more than two months to prepare an opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss when it is due on August 21, 2017.
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or Answer was due on July 10, 2017, but Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss early, on June 13, 2017. Petitioner's deadline to file an Opposition remains August 21, 2017. --------
In sum, the Court finds appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case. It does not appear that an evidentiary hearing will be necessary, the Court's review will be limited to the state court record, and Petitioner appears capable of adequately pursing his claim despite the limitations asserted in his Request for Appointment of Counsel. Accordingly, the Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
United States Magistrate Judge