Millsap v. People of the State of Calfornia

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FERNANDO SINGLETON MILLSAP,
aka FERNANDEZ SINGLETON MILLSAP,
aka FREDDY ELLIS,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00793-DAD-EPG-HC

v.

(ECF No. 11)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

16
Respondent.
17
18
19

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

20 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 11).
21

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

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

1

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he has limited access to the

1

2 law library and limited knowledge of the law. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the issues in
3 this case are complex.
Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his

4

5 claims for habeas relief and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues
6 involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success
7 on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present
8 time.
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

10 counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 6, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2