Stroud v. Neuschmid

Opinion

COLERIDGE B. STROUD, Case No.: 19-CV-924-JLS(WVG) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Warden, Respondent. [Doc. No. 3.] Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel. However, because there is insufficient basis to appoint counsel at this time, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate | || that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. Districts courts do have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(1), to request that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits and evaluation of the plaintiffs ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 1991). The Court agrees that any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, so long as a pro se litigant, like Plaintiff in this case, is able to “articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the exceptional circumstances which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert /testimony”). The Court has reviewed the Petition and finds there is insufficient basis to find that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits. Accordingly, exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel do not exist. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Dated: September 4, 2019 Se LA Ss Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge