Brim v. Vazquez

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 09/22/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 EURIE BRIM, III, 5 CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00536-SKO HC Petitioner, 6 v. 7 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL P.L. VAZQUEZ, Warden, 8 Respondent. (Doc. 18) 9 10 Petitioner Eurie Brim, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 11 12 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that he requires assistance due to 13 the complex issues in his case. In federal habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See, 14 th th 15 e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 16 Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice 17 so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner 18 has capably represented himself to this point, including his filing of a petition setting forth the same 19 issues he now deems complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this 20 advance stage of the proceedings. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: September 22, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sheila K. Oberto 1 .

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?