DeBose v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se habeas petitioner's motion to appoint counsel. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that appointed counsel was necessary to prevent due process violations.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel Denied Without Prejudice“Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from *Chaney v. Lewis* and *Knaubert v. Goldsmith*, which hold that indigent state prisoners are not entitled to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings unless the circumstances indicate it is necessary to prevent due process violations. The court found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the law library were insufficient to meet this high threshold. Denying without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism allowing the petitioner to refile if circumstances change or if they can provide better evidence of the need for counsel. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standard for appointment of counsel in federal habeas corpus proceedings. It correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (*Chaney*, *Knaubert*) and Supreme Court precedent (*Finley*). The court's reasoning, while brief, directly addresses the petitioner's specific argument (inadequacy of the law library) and concludes it does not meet the high threshold for appointment. There are no significant gaps in the legal analysis for this specific motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS LOVELL DEBOSE, Case No.: 20-CV-1132-MMA(WVG)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden, 15 Respondent. [Doc. No. 4.] 16 17 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 18 actions by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. 19 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 20 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the 22 interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona v. 23 Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 24 (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief 25 are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate 26 that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d 27 at 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. 28 1 In support of his request for appointment of counsel, Petitioner discusses a slew of 2 || matters extraneous to the core consideration of appointment of counsel. A small portion of 3 ||the motion does mention the alleged inadequacy of the prison law library. However, the 4 || Court is not satisfied that Petitioner cannot pursue the Petition even with the constraints he 5 describes. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: July 29, 2020 Hon. William V. Gallo 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28