Lopez v. Paramo

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 18 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Denial of Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/31/17. Traverse Deadline: 05/15/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSE M. LOPEZ,

11

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01489-LJO-SKO HC
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
DENIAL OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

12

v.

13

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

14

Respondent.
(Doc. 18)

15
16
17

Petitioner Jose M. Lopez, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

18 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for reconsideration of the Court’s January 30, 2016, order denying
19 appointment of counsel to assist in the preparation of Petitioner’s reply (traverse). Petitioner contends
20 that he requires assistance due to Respondent’s lengthy answer to the petition and Petitioner’s difficulty
21 in writing the reply following recent arm and shoulder surgery. Petitioner indicates that he expects to be
22 able to use a pen on or before March 15, 2017.
23

In federal habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See,

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

25 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice
26 so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner
27 has capably represented himself to this point, including his filing of a petition setting forth the same
28 issues he now deems complex. Because the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at
1
29
30

1 this advanced stage of the proceedings, the Court declines to reconsider its previous denial of appointed
2 counsel.
Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. In view of Petitioner’s recent

3

4 surgery, however, the Court hereby ORDERS that the date for Petitioner’s filing of a reply to the answer
5 shall be extended to May 15, 2017, after which date the Court shall take the petition under submission.
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated:
9

March 31, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.