Valles v. Allison

S.D. California

Valles v. Allison

DecidedJanuary 11, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-00819

StatusUnknown

This text of Valles v. Allison (Valles v. Allison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valles v. Allison, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW VALLES, Case No.: 21-CV-819-GPC-WVG

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary,

15 Respondent. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On January 3, 2022, Andrew Valles (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Appoint 19 Counsel. (Doc. No. 15.) In doing so, Petitioner moved the Court for an order appointing 20 counsel to act on his behalf and noted the Court “has already approved the Plaintiff’s 21 application to file the matter in forma pauperis.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner made no other 22 representations in his filing. 23 II. APPLICABLE LAW 24 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 25 actions by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. 26 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 27 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the 1 ||interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona vy. 2 || Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 3 || (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[iJndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief 4 || are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate 5 appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d 6 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. 7 HI. DISCUSSION 8 Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner 9 || offers no grounds in support of his Motion, thus leaving the Court with no basis to consider 10 || granting his request. For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s 11 || Motion to Appoint Counsel. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: January 11, 2022 | Se 14 15 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW VALLES, Case No.: 21-CV-819-GPC-WVG

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary,

15 Respondent. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On January 3, 2022, Andrew Valles (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Appoint 19 Counsel. (Doc. No. 15.) In doing so, Petitioner moved the Court for an order appointing 20 counsel to act on his behalf and noted the Court “has already approved the Plaintiff’s 21 application to file the matter in forma pauperis.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner made no other 22 representations in his filing. 23 II. APPLICABLE LAW 24 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus 25 actions by state prisoners. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Chaney v. 26 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 27 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the 1 ||interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (West 2000); Terrovona vy. 2 || Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 3 || (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[iJndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief 4 || are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate 5 appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d 6 1196; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29. 7 HI. DISCUSSION 8 Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner 9 || offers no grounds in support of his Motion, thus leaving the Court with no basis to consider 10 || granting his request. For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s 11 || Motion to Appoint Counsel. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: January 11, 2022 | Se 14 15 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Valles v. Allison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valles-v-allison-casd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack