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)

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

.