Brownlee v. Rommoro

Filing 28

ORDER Denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 03/26-15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01990-LJO-SAB-HC

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 23)

v.
LYDIA ROMMORO,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 19, 2014, Petitioner filed his petition in the Sacramento
19 Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1).
20 On June 27, 2014, Petitioner filed his first amended petition in the Sacramento Division. (ECF
21 No. 8). On July 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge in Sacramento issued a findings and
22 recommendation to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF
23 No. 13). Petitioner subsequently filed an affidavit in support of his objections. (ECF No. 16).
24

On December 12, 2014, this action was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 17). The

25 Magistrate Judge in Sacramento transferred the case to Fresno because Petitioner articulated in
26 his objections that he was challenging the amended judgment issued from the Fresno County
27 Superior Court and not the execution of his sentence. (ECF No. 17).
28

On March 6, 2015, this Court issued an order for Petitioner to show cause why the

1

1 petition should not be dismissed for violating the limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
2 (ECF No. 22). On March 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause and a
3 motion for appointment counsel. (ECF Nos. 23 & 27).
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

4

5 See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d
6 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment
7 of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules
8 Governing Section 2254 Cases.
In the instant case, Petitioner requests counsel “in order to uphold the hands of justice.”

9

10 (ECF No. 23 at 2). Upon a review of the petition, the Court does not find that the interests of
11 justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of

12

13 counsel is DENIED.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated:

March 26, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2