Torres

Torres v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 20213:19-cv-01964California1,595 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDUARDO TORRES, Case No.: 19-cv-01964-LAB-JLB

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Respondents. [ECF No. 47] 16 Before the Court is Petitioner Eduardo Torres’s second Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 47.) Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF Nos. 1; 21.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice. I. LEGAL STANDARD The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions filed by state prisoners. McCleskly v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991). Petitioners do not have an absolute right to counsel for habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). …

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.