Hughes v. People of the State of California

Filing 29

ORDER Denying 28 Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/23/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BERNARD C. HUGHES,

10

Petitioner,

11

v.

12

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-BAM HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WARDEN MARTIN BITER,

13

Respondent.

(Doc. 28)

14
15
16

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17 2254, moves for appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that recent modifications of his
18 antidepressant medication render him unable to address the complex issues in preparing his reply
19 (traverse).
20

In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See, e.g.,

th
th
21 Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir.

22 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so
23 require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
24

In the above-captioned case, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require the

25 appointment of counsel in this case at this time. The well-prepared petition submitted by Plaintiff
26 presents issues that are no more complex than the issues submitted in the vast majority of petitions for
27 writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court. Although Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
28 Cases in the United States District Courts authorizes the filing of a reply (traverse) to the respondent's
1
29
30

1 answer, the petitioner is not required to file a reply. Further, a petitioner may not introduce issues in a
th
2 reply (traverse). United States v. Cox, 7 F.3d 1458, 1463 (9 Cir. 1993). In this case, the grounds for

3 relief have been well-briefed, and the record is complete but for the filing of the optional reply.
4

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 23, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

29

A. McAuliffe

2