Hunt v. Matevousian

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/29/16. (Hellings, J)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEPHEN VINCENT HUNT, II,

5

Petitioner,

6

v.

7

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00165-LJO-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

8

Respondent.

(Doc. 20)

9
10
Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

11

12 § 2241, moves for appointment of counsel. In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of
th
13 counsel currently exists. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v.
th
14 Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the

15 case "if the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing
16 Section 2254 Cases.
Petitioner contends that appointment of counsel is required since (1) he is indigent; (2) he has

17

18 raised at least one meritorious claim; and (3) counsel could more skillfully present Petitioner’s claim to
19 the Court. The answer and reply (traverse) in this case have already been filed, however. Petitioner
20 competently prepared and filed his petition and reply. Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence that the
21 interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at this time.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25

Dated:

March 29, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
29
30

1