Reyes v. Warden of CSP-Corcoran

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel; ORDER Granting Motions for Status re 19 , 20 , 21 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ALVAR MONTANEZ REYES,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

v.
MICHAEL SEXTON, Acting Warden

14

Respondent.

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00043-LJO-MJS (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 18)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR STATUS
(ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21)

16
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

19
20

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On October 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF

21
22

No. 18.)
On January 20, February 27, and May 5, 2017, he filed motions seeking the

23
24

status of his motion for appointment of counsel and his petition. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21.)

25

I.

Motion for Status

26

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the

27

nation, and are unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and

28

1

matters. Given these burdens, the Court addresses only the arguments and evidence

2

necessary to resolve matters pending before the Court. The Court simply cannot

3

respond to miscellaneous correspondence.

4

Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is addressed herein. His

5

petition remains pending and will be addressed in due course. To the extent this

6

information resolves the motions for status, the motions will be granted.

7

II.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

8

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

9

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v.

10

Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir.

11

1984). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage

12

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

13

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice

14

require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, the motion will be

15

denied without prejudice.

16

III.

17

Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18) is DENIED

18
19

without prejudice;
2. Petitioner’s motions for status (ECF Nos. 19, 20, and 21) are GRANTED,

20
21

to the extent they are addressed herein.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 20, 2017

/s/

25

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2