Opinion
2:09-cv-1992-JCM-PAL.
February 9, 2011
ORDER
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner.
Petitioner has filed two motions seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 15 ECF No. 19). Petitioner asserts that the issues in this case are complex and that the inmate clerk who had assisted petitioner is no longer available.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970).
The petition on file in this action is well-written and sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to bring. The issues in this case are not complex. An answer has been filed in this case, and no further filings are required, other than an optional reply. Petitioner does not allege that he is incapable of handling the remainder of the case. Counsel is not justified in this instance.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15 ECF No. 19) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of issuance of this order to file a reply, if any, to the answer.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2011.