Bork v. Sherman

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/12/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH RUSSELL BORK, JR.,
Petitioner,

12

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01844-SAB-HC

STU SHERMAN,

15

(ECF No. 2)

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2). There currently exists no

20 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801
21 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958).
22 However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the
23 proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. §
24 3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether
25 to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
26 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
27 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
28 ///

1

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he is a layman and unable to

1

2 formulate the arguments required to establish that he has been a victim of false convictions.
3 (ECF No. 2 at 2). Upon review of the petition and the instant request for appointment of counsel,
4 the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues
5 involved and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. Further, Petitioner does not
6 demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the
7 appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

8

9 counsel is DENIED.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

December 12, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2