Valles v. Allison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDREW VALLES, Case No.: 21-CV-819-GPC-WVG 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary, 15 Respondent.

17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On January 3, 2022, Andrew Valles (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. No. 15.) In doing so, Petitioner moved the Court for an order appointing counsel to act on his behalf and noted the Court “has already approved the Plaintiff’s application to file the matter in forma pauperis.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner made no other representations in his filing.

23 II. APPLICABLE LAW 24 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 vy.

2 || Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 || (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, “[iJndigent state prisoners applying for habeas relief || 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 || offers no grounds in support of his Motion, thus leaving the Court with no basis to consider || granting his request. For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s || Motion to Appoint Counsel.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 ||Dated: January 11, 2022 | Se 15 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge