Gomez

Gomez v. Sullivan

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 20203:19-cv-06129California525 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ELROY PEDRO GOMEZ, Case No. 19-cv-06129-SI

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WILLIAM “JOE” SULLIVAN, Re: Dkt. No. 14 Respondent.

12 Petitioner has filed a request for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. Petitioner adequately pled his claim for relief in a habeas…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.