Murray v. Lozano

Background

Rickey Paul Murray, a state prisoner incarcerated at California Medical Facility, filed this action without a lawyer seeking federal review of his state imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asked the court to appoint counsel. Murray argued that he was indigent and unable to afford representation and that a California court rule required counsel for indigent petitioners upon request.

Analysis

The court held that California Rules of Court govern cases filed in California state courts and do not apply to federal habeas actions. The court also explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), a district court may appoint counsel for a financially unable habeas petitioner when the interests of justice require it. Appointment is generally discretionary and is treated as an exception rather than the usual rule. The court noted that appointment may be appropriate in circumstances such as capital cases, impaired or uneducated petitioners, cases likely to require experts, cases requiring investigation of crucial facts, or factually complex cases.

The court found that the record did not show that justice required appointed counsel. Murray had adequately presented the issues, and the case did not appear factually complex or to require expert testimony or further factual investigation.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam denied Murray’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later on its own initiative if circumstances require it. The order terminated docket entry 11. It did not decide the merits of Murray’s underlying federal petition.