Milan-Rodriguez v. Lynch

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/20/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE ANTONIO MILAN-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-01578-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 3)

14
15

LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

18 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 also 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 he cannot adequately present

28 the factual issues in this case. Petitioner currently is detained under extremely restrictive

1

1 conditions, limiting his ability to investigate and present the factual issues relevant to his
2 petition. Additionally, since Petitioner was taken into custody, he has not had access to his legal
3 papers, which were placed into “property for safekeeping.” (ECF No. 3 at 2). Petitioner also
4 contends that the complexity of the issues warrant appointment of counsel and that judicial
5 economy also would be served by experienced federal counsel examining the claims in this
6 petition.
Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his

7

8 claims for habeas relief and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues
9 involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success
10 on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present
11 time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

12

13 counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated:

October 20, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2