Pesqueira 213247 v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 31, 2019
• Docket: 4:19-cv-00047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Manuel Jesus Pesqueira, No. CV-19-0047-TUC-JAS (BGM)

10 Petitioner, 11 ORDER v. 12 13 Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

14 Respondents. 15 16 Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Manuel J. Pesqueira’s Motion for 17 Declaration of Indigency and Eligibility for Court Appointed Counsel, Experts, 18 Investigators and Defense Costs (Doc. 19). 19 “[T]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus 20 actions.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). “Indigent state 21 prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless 22 the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to 23 prevent due process violations.” Id. (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 24 1970) (per curiam); Eskridge v. Rhay, 345 F.2d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 1965); see also Bonin 25 v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428-29 (9th Cir. 1993) (“the district court abuses its discretion 26 when the case is so complex that due process violations will occur absent the presence of 27 counsel.”) Further, the Court may appoint counsel when “the interests of justice so 28 require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). 1 Additionally, the rules governing habeas proceedings mandate the appointment of 2 || 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. 4|| Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting “that unless an evidentiary hearing 5|| is held, an attorney's skill . . . is largely superfluous; the district court is entitled to rely on 6|| 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 8 || the [plaintiff] to articulate [his] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 9|| involved.” Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 11 The Court has previously explained this standard to Petitioner. See Order 2/12/2019 (Doc. 7). Moreover, the purpose of appointment of counsel pursuant to the 13 || Criminal Justice Act is to ensure a defendant’s right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Guidelines for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes at § 110.10, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules- || policies/judiciary-policies/cja-guidelines/chapter-1-ss-110-defender-services-program 17 || Cast visited March 2, 2018). As noted, supra, Petitioner has no such right to counsel in 18 || federal habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has adequately delineated his claims 19 || and the Court required Respondents to file an Answer. See Order 3/15/2019 (Doc. 11). 20 || The Court will not appoint counsel at this time. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Declaration 22|| of Indigency and Eligibility for Court Appointed Counsel, Experts, Investigators and 23 || Defense Costs (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice. 24 Dated this 31st day of July, 2019.

26 Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald 7 United States Magistrate Judge 28

_2-