Rodriguez v. Soto
Filing
24
ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 22 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/16/16. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOSE RODRIGUEZ,
10
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO HC
Petitioner,
11
v.
12
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden at R.J. Donovan
Correctional Facility,
13
(Doc. 22)
Respondent.
14
15
16
Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
17 2254, moves for appointment of counsel. In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of
th
18 counsel currently exists. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v.
th
19 Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the
20 case "if the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing
21 Section 2254 Cases.
22
Petitioner contends that appointment of counsel is required because (1) he lacks the financial
23 means to hire counsel; (2) he is inexperienced at legal matters; (3) his case is unduly complex and the
24 record is voluminous; and (4) he has been unable to find counsel who will represent him without cost.
25 He shares these four contentions with nearly all petitioners for writs of habeas corpus. Petitioner has
26 competently filed his petition and reply to Respondent’s answer, presenting well-reasoned arguments
27 supported by appropriate legal citations. Briefing of the case is complete and awaiting the Court’s
28 decision.
29
30
1
1 Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel
2 at this time.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated:
7
May 16, 2016
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sheila K. Oberto
2
.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?