Lopez v. Paramo
ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 15 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/30/17. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSE M. LOPEZ,
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01489-LJO-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,
Petitioner Jose M. Lopez, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
12 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel to assist in the preparation of his reply (traverse).
13 Petitioner contends that he requires assistance due to unspecified complex issues and unspecified
14 changes in applicable law.
In federal habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See,
16 e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8
17 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice
18 so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner
19 has capably represented himself to this point, including his filing of a petition setting forth the same
20 issues he now deems complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this
21 advance stage of the proceedings.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 30, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sheila K. Oberto
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?