Cervantes v. Arnold

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/11/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LUIS CERVANTES,

8
9
10
11

Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01379-DAD-SKO HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Respondent.

(Doc. 9)

12
13
14

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

15 § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel.
16

In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See, e.g.,

th
th
17 Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8 Cir.

18 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so
19 require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The decision to
20 appoint counsel is in the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.3d 1191, 1196 (9th
21 Cir. 1986, cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023 (1987). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances
22 of a case indicate that appointment of counsel is necessary to prevenst a due process violation or when
23 an evidentiary hearing is required. Chaney, 801 F.3d at 1196; Rule 8(c).
24

Here, Petitioner contends that the Court should appoint counsel because he needs assistance to

25 properly articulate his case. Petitioner has competently submitted a petition and alleges no basis by
26 which the Court may appoint counsel on his behalf.
27

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

28
29
30

1

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated:
3

December 11, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.