Blackgold v. Madden
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — In the Ninth Circuit, 27 “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel 28 unless the circumstances of a particul
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Suten Blackgold, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in a federal habeas corpus action, moved for the appointment of counsel. The court denied the motion, finding that the interests of justice did not require appointment because the petition did not identify specific complexities or limitations necessitating counsel.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for appointment of counsel denied“Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is, therefore, DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Chaney v. Lewis) which holds 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 (e.g., complexity of issues or limited education). The court reviewed the petition and found no such complexity, and noted the motion was general rather than specific. This is a standard discretionary determination supported by the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities for the Ninth Circuit. It correctly identifies the lack of a constitutional right to counsel in this context and applies the 'interests of justice' standard. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a denial based on the face of the petition and the general nature of the request.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUTEN BLACKGOLD, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00013-CAB-BGS 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 13 v. REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, 15 Respondent. [ECF 8] 16 17 Suten Blackgold, Petitioner, moves for an appointment of counsel. (ECF 8.) 18 Petition filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 1, 2023. (ECF 1.) His 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. (ECF 6.) For the following 20 reasons, Petitioner’s request for an appointment of counsel is DENIED. 21 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 22 actions by state prisoners. McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 23 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Even so, financially eligible habeas petitioners 24 seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may receive court-appointed counsel when 25 the court determines that “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 26 3006A(a)(2)(B); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015). In the Ninth Circuit, 27 “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel 28 unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary 1 || to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196. A due process violation 2 || may occur in the absence of counsel if the issues involved are too complex for the 3 || petitioner. Jd. The appointment of counsel may also be necessary if the petitioner is of 4 ||such limited education as to be incapable of presenting his claims. Hawkins v. Bennett, 5 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). 6 Petitioner’s request does not identify a specific reason counsel is necessary; he 7 requests counsel generally, “so that [his] interests may be protected by the professional 8 || assistance required.” (ECF 8 at 1.) Furthermore, the Court has reviewed his petition, and 9 ||concludes at this stage that there are no issues that are too complex that would indicate 10 || that appointed counsel is “necessary to prevent due process violations.” See Chaney, 801 11 at 1196. Thus, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel. 12 || See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is, 13 || therefore, DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || Dated: July 17, 2023 2 p M7 on. Bernard G. Skomal 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28