Brim v. Vazquez
ORDER Denying Petitioner's 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 09/22/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EURIE BRIM, III,
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00536-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
P.L. VAZQUEZ, Warden,
Petitioner Eurie Brim, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
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,
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.
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 22, 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?