Soojian v. Lizarraga
Filing
11
ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/25/2016. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TANNEN SOOJIAN,
Petitioner,
12
13
Case No. 1:16-cv-00254-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
(ECF No. 3)
14
15
JOE A. LIZARRAGA,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
18 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3).
19
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.
20 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d
21 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of
22 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice
23 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to
24 appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
25 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
26 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
27
Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because this case involves complex
28 factual and legal issues, he lacks specialized legal education, and he is indigent and cannot
1
1 investigate crucial facts. Upon review of the petition and the instant request for appointment of
2 counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner has a comprehensive grasp of his claims for habeas relief
3 and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate those claims effectively. Further,
4 Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of
5 justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for appointment of
6
7 counsel is DENIED.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated:
February 25, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?