Sanchez v. Silva, 1:17-cv-11811

Petitioner Ruben Sanchez, an inmate at Souza Baranowski Correctional Center, filed a habeas corpus petition raising a Batson claim: that the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against one or more qualified Hispanic prospective jurors on the basis of ethnicity.
Sanchez moved for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) to represent him in the § 2254 habeas proceeding.
The motion was considered by Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The court reviewed the legal standard: no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings, but courts may appoint counsel under § 3006A(a)(2)(B) when the interests of justice require (typically nonfrivolous, legally/factually complex claims or petitioner’s inability to investigate).
The court found the facts straightforward (peremptory strikes during jury selection), Batson law well established, and Sanchez’s petition to be cogent and adequately presented.
Based on these findings, the court denied the motion for appointment of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel should be appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) for a § 2254 habeas petition asserting a Batson claim	Sanchez: appointment needed to vindicate his Batson-based equal protection claim	Respondents: appointment unnecessary because the claim and law are not sufficiently complex and petitioner can adequately present the claim	Denied — counsel not appointed; claim is straightforward, law well-established, and petitioner presented the issue adequately

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (holding that peremptory strikes based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction habeas proceedings)
Wardlaw v. Cain, 541 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2008) (denial of appointed counsel where issue not complex and petitioner adequately briefed it)
Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701 (8th Cir. 1990) (appointment of counsel warranted where claim nonfrivolous, facts and law complex, and petitioner unable to investigate)
United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058 (1st Cir. 1993) (discussing factors for appointment of counsel under § 3006A(a)(2) in collateral proceedings)
Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1994) (courts should consider legal/factual complexity and petitioner’s ability to investigate when deciding appointment)
Swazo v. Wyoming Dep’t of Corrections, 23 F.3d 332 (10th Cir. 1994) (no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings)
Ellis v. United States, 313 F.3d 636 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting convicted defendants have no constitutional right to counsel in habeas or § 2255 proceedings)