From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lewis v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 1, 2020
Case No.: 20cv1042-MMA (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2020)

Opinion

Case No.: 20cv1042-MMA (MSB)

09-01-2020

DONALD R. LEWIS Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, et al., Respondents.


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF NO. 10]

On August 20, 2020, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion asking the Court to appoint counsel. (See ECF No. 10; see also ECF No. 9.) This motion follows the Court's August 7, 2020 Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel by less than two weeks. (See ECF No. 8.) Very similar to Petitioner's prior motion, Petitioner claims that appointment of counsel is justified because "the issues raised in this appeal is complex, and beyond his limited intellectual ability, and understanding." (Id. at 3.) The motion also states that the inmate who assisted with Petitioner's request for counsel will not be available to assist with opposing a motion to dismiss. (Id. at 2.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. Habeas Corpus Res. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 816 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that there is no federal constitutional right to appointment of counsel in postconviction collateral attacks on a conviction or sentence in state or federal court). Courts may, however, appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when "the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B)); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted) ("Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus 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."). Courts have discretion in determining whether to appoint counsel, unless an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1990); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728-30 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts may exercise their discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in "exceptional circumstances." Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). When assessing whether exceptional circumstances exist, courts must evaluate "the likelihood of the plaintiff's success on the merits" and "the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims 'in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.'" Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). Both of these factors must be reviewed before deciding whether to appoint counsel, and neither factor is individually dispositive. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Petitioner has not established the required exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel. Petitioner has not presented any new information to change the picture since the Court's prior order on this issue. Despite his claimed limited intellectual ability, the only evidence before the Court regarding his abilities demonstrates that the Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date. Petitioner has submitted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 3] and now two motions for appointment of counsel [ECF Nos. 7, 10]. Petitioner's filings indicate that he has a sufficient grasp of his case and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate the grounds for his Petition. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court's denial of request for appointment of counsel, where pleadings demonstrated petitioner had "a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions."); see also Taa v. Chase Home Fin., No. 5:11-CV-00554 EJD, 2012 WL 507430, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012) (noting a pro se litigant's lack of legal training and poverty do not constitute exceptional circumstances, because many other litigants face similar difficulties when proceeding pro se). The Court also concludes that at this stage in the proceedings, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Additionally, the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel in this case. Courts are required to construe a petition filed by a pro se litigant more liberally than a petition drafted by counsel. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 729. "The district court must scrutinize the state court record independently to determine whether the state court procedures and findings were sufficient." Id. (citations omitted). The Petition contains claims that the Court will be able to properly resolve by reviewing the state court record independently, and the "additional assistance provided by attorneys, while significant, is not compelling." See id. Accordingly, with no changes between Plaintiff's last motion for appointment of counsel and the current motion, the Court again finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. See LaMere, 827 F.2d at 626 (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel, where the pleadings established that petitioner understood the issues and was able to present his contentions).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 1, 2020

/s/_________

Honorable Michael S. Berg

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Lewis v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 1, 2020
Case No.: 20cv1042-MMA (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2020)
Case details for

Lewis v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:DONALD R. LEWIS Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, et al., Respondents.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 1, 2020

Citations

Case No.: 20cv1042-MMA (MSB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2020)