Williams v. Baca

Opinion

5 * * *

6 MATTHEW WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00575-MMD-CLB

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 ISIDRO BACA, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Matthew Williams has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 12 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the Court is his second motion for appointment of counsel (the 13 “Motion”) (ECF No. 16). 14 As the Court previously explained, there is no constitutional right to appointed 15 counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 16 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint 17 counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), 18 cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). 19 However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial 20 of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person 21 of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 22 801 F.2d at 1196; Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). Previously, the Court 23 determined that Williams’ Petition—now together with the supplement to the Petition— 24 presents the issues that he wishes to raise in a reasonably clear manner, and the legal 25 issues do not appear to be particularly complex. (ECF No. 9 at 1-2.) In the Motion, Williams 26 argues that other inmates will not assist him unless he pays them, which of course would 27 violate NDOC regulations. (ECF No. 16 at 3.) This is not a valid reason to appoint counsel, 28 /// 1 || and it does not change this Court’s view that the Petition and supplement are reasonably 2 || clear. Therefore, the Motion is denied. 3 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's second motion for appointment of counsel 4 || (ECF No. 16) is denied. 5 It is further ordered that Respondents file a response to the Petition within 90 days 6 || of the date of this order. 7 It is further ordered that the briefing schedule set forth in this Court’s order dated 8 || February 21, 2020 (ECF No. 15) otherwise remains in effect. 9 10 DATED this 21% day of April 2020. — 11 _ Lf a Cla _ MIRANDA M. DU 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28