Laforte v. Godwin

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 19, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00069
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER PATRICK LAFORTE, Case No.: 3:22-cv-0069-MMA-NLS

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 R. GODWIN, Warden,

15 Respondent. [ECF Nos. 10, 19] 16 17 Before the Court are Peter Patrick LaForte’s (“Petitioner”) Motions to Appoint 18 Counsel. ECF Nos. 10, 19. Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on 19 January 18, 2022, and proceeds pro se. ECF No. 1. After due consideration, and for the 20 reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motions for appointment of counsel 21 without prejudice. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner seeks habeas relief for his state court conviction of assault with a deadly 24 weapon. ECF No. 1. According to his state court proceedings, Petitioner entered a retail 25 store and attempted to conceal a bottle of vodka under his clothing. ECF No. 16-1 at 3. 26 When he was confronted by a store employee, Petitioner took the bottle and struck the 27 employee, injuring him. Id. Petitioner plead guilty, admitted that he inflicted great bodily 28 injury on the employee, and admitted to a prior serious felony conviction and prior strike. 1 In his habeas petition, Petitioner raises the following issues: (1) that the state court 2 interfered with his right to have conflict-free counsel; (2) that the state court erred when it 3 framed options to petitioner regarding counsel and withdrawing his plea; (3) that the state 4 court should not have let him proceed to sentencing with an attorney with a conflict of 5 interest; and (4) his trial counsel is ineffective. ECF Nos. 4-3, 4-4. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 7 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 8 actions by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. 9 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 10 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant 11 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the 12 interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 13 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 14 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not 15 entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 16 appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 17 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. Failure to appoint counsel may result in a due 18 process violation if the issues involved are too complex for the petitioner. Hawkins v. 19 Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 1970). “A district court should consider the legal 20 complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner’s ability to 21 investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant factors.” Abdullah v. Norris, 18 22 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). Unless an evidentiary hearing is necessary, courts 23 maintain discretion to determine whether to appoint counsel. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 24 1177; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-30. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 Petitioner filed two motions for appointment of counsel. In his first motion, he 27 argues that he is not educated in federal law and that he does not have access to the law 28 library due to Covid-19 restrictions. ECF No. 10. In his second motion, he argues that 1 he is indigent and unable to afford counsel. ECF No. 19. He also argues that counsel 2 must be appointed where a court issues an order to show cause, citing a California Rule 3 of Court. Id. at 2. 4 First, lack of education in the law does not warrant appointment of counsel, nor 5 does financial hardship. Taa v. Chase Home Fin., 2012 WL 507430, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 6 Feb. 15, 2012) (noting a pro se litigant’s lack of legal training and poverty do not 7 constitute exceptional circumstances, because many other litigants face similar 8 difficulties when proceeding pro se) (citing Wood v. Houseright, 900 F.2d 1332-36 (9th 9 Cir. 1990). 10 Second, while Petitioner complains in his first motion about lack of law library 11 access because of Covid-19 restrictions, he does not make this same argument in his 12 latter-filed second motion for appointment of counsel. Thus, it is not apparent to the 13 Court that this is still a ripe concern. Furthermore, lack of access to the law library is 14 belied by the filings on the record since Petitioner’s first request for appointment of 15 counsel. Petitioner has since been able to file a substantive, 26-page response to 16 Respondent’s answer, which includes extensive citations to case law and the record. ECF 17 No. 21. 18 Finally, Petitioner argues that “when a court issues an order to show cause, counsel 19 must be appointed for an indigent petitioner who requests counsel. California Rules of 20 Court, Rule 4.551(c)(2) and Federal Rules of Court.” ECF No. 19 at 2. However, the 21 rule that Petitioner cites applies to habeas proceedings in California state court, not 22 federal court and while Petitioner vaguely cites to “Federal Rules of Court,” the Court is 23 not aware of any such rule that applies in federal court. Rather, appointment of counsel 24 in federal court is governed by the legal standards stated above. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Because Petitioner has not shown that any circumstances exist here that warrant 3 ||}appointment of counsel at this time, Petitioner’s motions are DENIED WITHOUT 4 || PREJUDICE. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 19, 2022 7 Mite. Lemme 8 Hon. Nita L. Stormes 9 United States Magistrate Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28