Marcos Palomar v. Madden

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/7/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

MARCOS PALOMAR,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-01279-DAD-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 16)
RAYMOND MADDEN,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
17
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF
18
No. 16).
19
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.
20
See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d
21
773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment
22
23
24

of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional
circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the

25
petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
26
See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
27
Petitioner mentions that someone has been assigned to represent the Respondent and
28
Petitioner requests that the Court appoint him an attorney as well. It appears that Petitioner is
1

1 referring to Respondent’s counsel’s October 22, 2015 notice of appearance and designation of
2 counsel for service. The Court notes that the Court did not appoint an attorney for Respondent.
Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he cannot afford an attorney,

3

4 he does not know anything about the law, and he does not know how to read or write English.
5 Petitioner indicates that he asked someone to write his motion for appointment of counsel for
6 him. The Court notes that Petitioner was able to submit his petition, motion to proceed in form
7 pauperis, and the instant motion for appointment of counsel in English. Therefore, the record
8 suggests that Petitioner either has some proficiency in English or access to a translator.
Upon a review of Petitioner’s petition, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the

9

10 instant motion for the appointment of counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner has a sufficient
11 grasp of his claims for habeas relief and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate
12 those claims adequately, even though someone else may be assisting him.

Furthermore,

13 Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that his case should be
14 classified as an “exceptional circumstance.” See Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. Therefore, in the
15 present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of
16 counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of

17

18 counsel is DENIED.
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated:

December 7, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2