Davis

MEMORANDUM *

Kennard Lee Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his multiple requests for counsel on the ground of incompetency and the dismissal of his federal habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse and remand for a competency determination.

We construe Davis’s pro se requests for counsel liberally. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 892 (9th Cir.2008). A pro se plaintiff “is entitled to a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2005). The “district court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition ... without first holding a competency hearing,” id. at 1153-54 , because Davis put forth substantial evidence that he “may be suffering from a condition that materially affects his ability to represent himself ... or otherwise to understand the nature of the proceedings,” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). Like Allen, Davis submitted his own and his fellow inmates’ declarations stating that he was incapable of representing himself, as well as mental health records showing a…