USA v. Valenzuela

1 21-cr-2960-AGS
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Keith RODRIGUEZ PADILLA,
Defendant.
Case No.: 21-cr-2960-AGS
ORDER DENYING REQUESTS TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF 381 &
ECF 395)
Defendant moves to “appoint new counsel to represent [him] on direct appeal”
(ECF 395, at 1), while his currently appointed appellate attorney separately moves this
Court to appoint “counsel for filing of a habeas petition” (ECF 381, at 1). Both motions
must be denied.
First, this Court cannot appoint replacement appellate counsel. When defendant filed
his “notice of appeal,” it “divested the district court of further jurisdiction over the case.”
Pope v. Sav. Bank of Puget Sound, 850 F.2d 1345, 1347 (9th Cir. 1988). The proper court
to consider such a request would be the Court of Appeals.
Similarly, this Court cannot hear a request for appointed counsel on a potential or
hypothetical petition for a writ of habeas corpus. If “the interests of justice so require,” the
Court may appoint counsel for an “impoverished habeas petitioner.” Bashor v. Risley, 730
F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (cleaned up); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). But
defendant is not yet a “habeas petitioner,” see Bashor, 730 F.2d at 1234, nor is he currently
“seeking relief” under any of the habeas statutes, see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), as
required to qualify for such an appointment. If defendant later files a habeas petition, he
may then seek appointed counsel in that future case.
In the meantime, both counsel-appointment requests are DENIED.
Case 3:21-cr-02960-AGS Document 403 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2 21-cr-2960-AGS
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
Dated: February 27, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cr-02960-AGS Document 403 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2