Guerrero v. People of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES GUERRERO, Case No. 22-cv-06088 BLF (PR) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 12 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

16 (Docket No. 11) 18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Dkt. No. 1. On March 28, 2023, the Court set a briefing schedule on the cognizable claims, directing Respondent to file an answer or dispositive motion within sixty days of the order. Dkt. No. 10.

22 Respondent’s answer is currently due no later than May 29, 2023. Id. Petitioner recently filed a notice of change of address, which includes a request for appointment of counsel.

24 Dkt. No. 11.

25 The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions.

26 See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within || cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984). Here, an evidentiary hearing does not appear to be || necessary at this stage of the proceedings, and Petitioner’s circumstances are not so || exceptional to warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for || appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte || reconsideration should an evidentiary hearing be necessary to review the merits of || Petitioner’s claims.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. g || Dated: __April 14, 2023 feinfhacncan 9 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 2B Z 18 95 Order Denying Request for Appt. of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.22\06088Guerrero_deny.atty.docx