Cole v. Shinn

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-00523
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Charles Allen Cole, III, No. CV-21-0523-TUC-RM (BGM)

10 Petitioner, 11 ORDER v. 12 13 David Shinn, et al.,

14 Respondents. 15 16 Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Charles Allen Cole, III’s Motion 17 to be Appointed Counsel (Doc. 17). 18 “[T]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus 19 actions.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). “Indigent state 20 prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless 21 the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to 22 prevent due process violations.” Id. (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 23 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965); see also Bonin 24 v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428-29 (9th Cir. 1993) (“the district court abuses its discretion 25 when the case is so complex that due process violations will occur absent the presence of 26 counsel.”) Further, the Court may appoint counsel when “the interests of justice so 27 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). 28 Additionally, the rules governing habeas proceedings mandate the appointment of || counsel “[i]f necessary for effective discovery...” or “[i]f an evidentiary hearing is warranted[.]” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 6(a) & 8(c); see also Knaubert v. □□ Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting “that unless an evidentiary hearing 4|| is held, an attorney's skill . . . is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on 5 || the state court record alone.”). In determining whether to request the assistance of an || attorney, the Court considers the “likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of 7\|| the [plaintiff] to articulate [his] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 8 || involved.” Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygandt v. 9|| Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (th Cir. 1983)). 10 Petitioner claims that he is young, with limited legal resources and knowledge, and 11 || financially unable to afford an attorney. The Court finds Petitioner has sufficiently articulated his habeas claims and has not made the necessary showing for appointment of 13 || counsel at this time. Upon review of Petitioner’s habeas petition, if the Court determines 14]| that an evidentiary hearing is required or that counsel is necessary for effective discovery, 15 || counsel will be appointed in accordance with Rules 6(a) and 8(c) of the Rules Governing 16 || Section 2254 Proceedings. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to be 18 || Appointed Counsel (Doc. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. 19 Dated this 19th day of April, 2022.

21 Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald 9 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-