Fisher

Williams v. Fisher

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 17, 20233:23-cv-00423California653 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 TOMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 23-CV-423-TWR-WVG

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. APPOINT COUNSEL

RATHEL FISHER, [Doc. No. 16] Respondent. 17 18 On August 15, 2023, Petitioner Tommy Lee Williams (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se in this habeas corpus action, sent a letter to this Court requesting assistance of counsel. Doc. No. 16. The Court construes Petitioner’s letter as a Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, financially eligible habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may obtain representation whenever the court “determines that the interests of justice so require.’” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir.…

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.