Humes v. Monterey County Jail
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-05123
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Humes v. Monterey County Jail, Judge Freeman denied Humes’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice in his federal petition.
Francis Anthony Humes’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying petition remained pending for consideration of its merits.
What happened
Humes, a California inmate representing himself, filed a petition under a federal law for state prisoners against Monterey County Jail. The order concerns his request for a lawyer in that case.
The court explained that the constitutional right to a lawyer does not apply to these petitions. It also said appointing a lawyer is usually up to the court unless an evidence hearing is needed. At that time, no such hearing appeared necessary, and the court found no exceptional circumstances.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The court may reconsider the issue later if it determines that an evidence hearing is needed after reviewing Humes’s claims.
The detailed version
- Humes v. Monterey County Jail · No. 5:21-cv-05123
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 14, 2021
Background
Francis Anthony Humes, identified as a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He moved for appointment of counsel, docketed as Docket No. 8.
Analysis
The court stated that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in federal petitions under § 2254. Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, appointing counsel is within the district court’s discretion. The court determined that an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary at that time and that exceptional circumstances did not warrant appointing counsel.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Humes’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The order allows the court to reconsider appointment on its own later if it finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary after considering the merits of Humes’s claims. The order terminated Docket No. 8 and did not decide the merits of the underlying petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.