Filed: Jul. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 comes before the Court on respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) and petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 19). 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 ge
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 comes before the Court on respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) and petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 19). 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 gen..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) and petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 19).
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. 1984), 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 in this case is sufficiently clear in presenting the issues that petitioner wishes to raise, and the issues are not complex. Therefore, counsel is not justified in this case, and the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.
Following review of the motion to dismiss, it appears that some of the relevant state court records were not filed with the Court. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state court on December 16, 2011, which was opened as Case No. CR10P1155.1 Litigation ensued in Case No. CR10P1155 until October 11, 2013, at which point the district court ordered the case be consolidated with petitioner's underlying criminal action, Case No. CR10-1155. It does not appear to the Court that respondents provided the Court with any relevant documents from Case No. CR10P1155, including but not limited to the petitioner's original petition. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order, respondents must supplement the record to include any and all relevant documents filed in Case No. CR10P1155.
It is therefore ordered that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.19) is denied.
It is further ordered that respondents must supplement the record as set forth above within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order.
