USA v. Ellis et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAMIEN EDWARD MCDANIEL,
Defendant.
Case No. 13-cr-00818-PJH-3
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 614
Defendant in the above-captioned case has filed a request for appointment of
counsel to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel
does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th
Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of counsel to
represent a prisoner seeking habeas relief under § 2255 whenever “the court determines
that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain
representation.” Generally, the decision to appoint counsel is within the district court’s
discretion. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). The purpose of
section 3006A is to provide appointed counsel whenever the failure to do so would
amount to a denial of due process. Id. Accordingly, in determining whether to appoint
counsel, the district court should weigh the ability of a pro se petitioner to present
forcefully and coherently his contentions based on a good understanding of the issues.
See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Where an evidentiary hearing
must be held, however, appointment of counsel is mandatory. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at
1196; see also Rule 8(c) of the Rules on Motion Attacking Sentence Under Section 2255.
Case 4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document 615 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
In view of the court’s familiarity with defendant’s case, having reviewed evidence
brought in this case, having ruled on several pretrial motions brought by defendant and
his co-defendants in this case, and having taken defendant’s guilty plea, the court does
not find that defendant is unable to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of
the legal issues involved. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Moreover, the court notes that defendant has already filed one § 2255 petition,
which was denied in September 2020. See Dkt. 445. Defendant may not bring a
“second or successive” § 2255 petition without first obtaining a certification from the court
of appeals. See United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011)
(internal citations omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). There is no indication that defendant
has obtained such a certification in this case.
Therefore, the court determines that the interests of justice do not require
appointment of counsel at this time.
Accordingly, defendant’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2026
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
Case 4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document 615 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2