Alvarez v. Robertson
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-04626
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Alvarez v. Robertson, Judge Gilliam denied Alvarez’s request for appointed counsel, while leaving open later appointment if circumstances require it.
Robert Tobias Alvarez’s request for appointed counsel was denied; the order did not decide the underlying petition.
What happened
In Alvarez v. Robertson, Robert Tobias Alvarez asked the court to appoint a lawyer because he said he was indigent, could not afford one, and would benefit from professional assistance.
The court explained that the constitutional right to a lawyer does not apply in these petition cases. A federal law nevertheless allows a court to appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it, but Alvarez had not identified circumstances showing that appointment was needed.
Judge Haywood Gilliam denied Alvarez’s request without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances require it. The order terminated the request filed as Docket No. 9.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. Robertson · No. 4:21-cv-04626
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 25, 2021
Background
Petitioner Robert Tobias Alvarez requested appointment of counsel. He stated that he was indigent, could not afford a lawyer, and believed his interests would be protected by professional assistance.
Legal standard
The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in habeas actions. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) permits a district court to appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the court determines that the interests of justice require it. Appointment is discretionary and generally is treated as an exception rather than the rule, including in circumstances such as capital cases, cases involving substantial or complex questions, impaired or uneducated petitioners, cases likely to require experts, cases in which the petitioner cannot investigate crucial facts, and factually complex cases.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Alvarez had not identified any circumstances in this action requiring appointment of counsel, and that nothing in the record showed that the interests of justice required it at that time. The court therefore denied Alvarez’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to appointing counsel later if circumstances require it. The order terminated Docket No. 9.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.