Valles v. Allison
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Andrew Valles, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a motion to appoint counsel in his federal habeas corpus action without providing any supporting arguments or facts. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the petitioner failed to offer any grounds for the request.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Appoint Counsel denied without prejudice“For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the legal standard that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Because the petitioner's motion contained no factual allegations or legal arguments demonstrating that the 'interests of justice' required appointment, the court was justified in denying the motion. Denying it without prejudice is appropriate as it allows the petitioner to refile with proper justification. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the lack of a constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings and cites the correct Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the discretionary nature of appointment. The reasoning is sound because the petitioner provided no factual basis for the court to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel. The denial without prejudice is procedurally correct.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW VALLES, Case No.: 21-CV-819-GPC-WVG 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary, 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On January 3, 2022, Andrew Valles (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Appoint 19 Counsel. (Doc. No. 15.) In doing so, Petitioner moved the Court for an order appointing 20 counsel to act on his behalf and noted the Court “has already approved the Plaintiff’s 21 application to file the matter in forma pauperis.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner made no other 22 representations in his filing. 23 II. APPLICABLE LAW 24 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 25 actions by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. 26 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 27 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the 1 ||interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona vy. 2 || Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 3 || (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[iJndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief 4 || are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate 5 appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d 6 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. 7 HI. DISCUSSION 8 Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner 9 || offers no grounds in support of his Motion, thus leaving the Court with no basis to consider 10 || granting his request. For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s 11 || Motion to Appoint Counsel. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: January 11, 2022 | Se 14 15 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28