Hernandez v. DHS/ICE, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 02/16/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ,

5

Petitioner,

6

v.

7

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01829-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

DHS/ICE and LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney
General of the United States of America,

8

(Doc. 21)
Respondents.

9
10
For the second time in this district, Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

11

12 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, moves for appointment of counsel. In habeas proceedings,
13 no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d
th
th
14 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may

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

17

18 to hire counsel; (2) is unable to investigate his claims while incarcerated; (3) his case is unduly complex;
19 and (4) he has been unable to find counsel who will represent him without cost. He shares these four
20 contentions with nearly all petitioners for writs of habeas corpus. Petitioner has competently filed his
21 petition and motion for appointment of counsel, presenting well reasoned arguments supported by
22 appropriate legal citations. Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require
23 the appointment of counsel at this time.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 Dated:

February 16, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
29
30

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

2