Guerrero v. People of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 JAMES GUERRERO, Case No. 22-cv-06088 BLF (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 12 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. 13

14 PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent. 16 (Docket No. 11)

17 18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Dkt. No. 1. On March 28, 20 2023, the Court set a briefing schedule on the cognizable claims, directing Respondent to 21 file an answer or dispositive motion within sixty days of the order. Dkt. No. 10. 22 Respondent’s answer is currently due no later than May 29, 2023. Id. Petitioner recently 23 filed a notice of change of address, which includes a request for appointment of counsel. 24 Dkt. No. 11. 25 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 26 See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 27 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within 1 cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). Here, an evidentiary hearing does not appear to be 2 necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and Petitioner’s circumstances are not so 3 exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for 4 appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 5 reconsideration should an evidentiary hearing be necessary to review the merits of 6 Petitioner’s claims. g || Dated: __April 14, 2023 feinfhacncan 9 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 10 11 12

2B 15

16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 95 Order Denying Request for Appt. of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.22\06088Guerrero_deny.atty.docx 26 27