Rolando Esteban Sanchez v. Raymond Madden

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 ROLANDO ESTEBAN SANCHEZ, Case No.: 21cv1072-MMA-MDD 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 12 v. PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS AND 13 RAYMOND MADDEN, DENYING PETITIONER’S 14 Respondent. REQUESTS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND EXPEDITED [15] REVIEW [16] 17 [ECF No. 13] [18] 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for 20 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . (ECF No. 1). On July 21 19, 2021, nunc pro tunc, Petitioner moved the Court for a copy of all 22 documents, motions, and court orders, appointment of counsel, expedited 23 review, and an order granting his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF 24 No. 13). Petitioner’s requests are addressed in turn. 25 A. Petitioner’s Request for a Copy of Documents, Motions 26 and Court Orders 1 and has not received any confirmation of his payments or notice that his case 2 has been reopened. (ECF No. 13). Petitioner has requested that a copy of all 3 documents, motions and court orders be mailed to him. (Id. at 2). 4 The Court’s records indicate the documents Petitioner alleges he 5 never received were sent to Petitioner at his current address. Regardless, in 6 light of Petitioner’s concern, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request and 7 ORDERS the Clerk of Court to mail ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 to 8 Petitioner. 9 B. Petitioner’s Request for Appointment of Counsel 10 Petitioner requests that the Court assign an attorney to represent 11 him so that he will receive a fair proceeding and avoid errors such as not 12 receiving relevant orders mailed by the Court. (ECF No. 13 at 2). 13 The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal 14 habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191 , 15 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 16 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court 18 “determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 19 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984). The interests of justice 21 require appointment of counsel when the court conducts an evidentiary 22 hearing on the petition. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1181 ; Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 23 728; Rule 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The appointment of counsel is 24 discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Knaubert, 791 F.2d 25 at 728 (citing Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1234 ). 26 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas 1 particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due 2 process violations.” Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196 (citing Kreiling v. Field, 431 3 F.2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1970)); Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728-29 . The Ninth 4 Circuit considers the clarity and coherence of a petitioner’s district court 5 pleadings to determine the necessity of appointment of counsel; if clear and 6 understandable, the court typically finds appointment of counsel 7 unnecessary. See LaMere v. Risely, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). 8 At this stage of the proceedings, it does not appear that appointment 9 of counsel is required to prevent a due process violation. Petitioner shows 10 that he has “a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present 11 forcefully and coherently his contentions” through his Petition. Id. Although 12 Petitioner indicates he has experienced issues receiving mail from the Court, 13 the Court has addressed this above by ordering the relevant documents be 14 mailed to Petitioner again. (ECF No. 13 at 2). Further, despite not having 15 received the Court’s Order docketed on June 16, 2021, Petitioner accessed the 16 law library and successfully found the Order in the Lexis Nexis system. (Id. 17 at 1). There is no indication that Petitioner is incapable of presenting his 18 claims. 19 Based on Petitioner’s filings thus far in the case, it appears that he is 20 adequately representing himself at this stage of the proceedings. 21 Accordingly, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the 22 appointment of counsel at this time and DENIES without prejudice 23 Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel. 24 C. Petitioner’s Request for Expedited Review and an Order 25 Granting his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 26 Petitioner also requests expedited review and an order granting his 1 ||these requests as premature. Following completion of the briefing, the Court 9 || will issue a Report and Recommendation on the Petition for Writ of Habeas 3 ||Corpus. As indicated above, the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to mail the 4 || briefing schedule located at ECF No. 9 to Petitioner. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2021 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge