Millsap v. People of the State of Calfornia
ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FERNANDO SINGLETON MILLSAP,
aka FERNANDEZ SINGLETON MILLSAP,
aka FREDDY ELLIS,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Case No. 1:17-cv-00793-DAD-EPG-HC
(ECF No. 11)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
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).
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).
Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he has limited access to the
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
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
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of
10 counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 6, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?