J-Weial v. Lizarraga

Filing 9

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/21/2016. (Flores, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

XAVIER LUMAR J-WEIAL,

5

Petitioner,

6

v.

7

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00044-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

8

Respondents.

(Doc. 8)

9
10
Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

11

12 § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel. In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of
th
13 counsel currently exists. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v.
th
14 Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the

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

17

18 to hire counsel; (2) he is unable to investigate his claims while incarcerated; and (3) his case is unduly
19 complex. He shares these three conditions with nearly all petitioners for writs of habeas corpus.
20 Petitioner has competently filed his petition and motion for appointment of counsel, presenting well
21 reasoned arguments supported by appropriate legal citations. Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence
22 that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at this time.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated:

January 21, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
29
30

1