Caetano v. Peery

Filing 83

ORDER DENYING 78 Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/22/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHAN CAETANO,

12

Petitioner,

13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00832-LJO-JDP (HC)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(Doc No. 78)

14

MICHAEL SEXTON, Acting Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Nathan Caetano is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se with a petition for writ

18

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In an order dated March 21, 2018, the court

19

dismissed Mr. Caetano’s petition as time-barred and entered judgment. (Doc No. 73.) In the

20

same order, the court denied petitioner’s multiple motions requesting appointment of counsel.

21

(Id. at 3.) On May 2, 2018, the court received the instant motion in which petitioner again

22

requests appointment of counsel. (Doc No. 78.) In support of his request, petitioner submits that

23

his case is complex and involves novel questions of law. (Id.)

24

There currently exists no absolute right to counsel in habeas proceedings. See Anderson v.

25

Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958) (“The Sixth Amendment has no application

26

here . . . .”). This court is authorized to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a habeas

27

proceeding if it determines that the interests of justice require the assistance of counsel. See

28
1

1

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). However,

2

“[i]ndigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel

3

unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to

4

prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d at 1196. Appointment of counsel

5

may be required if an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

6

8(c).

7

In its January 29, 2018 order, the court held that the motion to dismiss as time-barred

8

could be decided upon the record before the court and that there was no need for an expert

9

opinion or evidentiary hearing. (Doc No. 70 at 28.) The court found that the circumstances of the

10

case did not make appointed counsel necessary to guard against a due process violation. That

11

conclusion remains valid. The interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at

12

this time.

13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of
counsel (Doc No. 78) is DENIED.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 22, 2018

/s/

18

Jeremy D. Peterson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2