Taylor v. Pfeiffer

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/28/2017. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD WALTER TAYLOR, JR.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01699-SAB-HC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

12
Petitioner,
13
v.

(ECF No. 3)

14
C. PFEIFFER,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). There currently exists no

21 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801
22 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958).
23 However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the
24 proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. §
25 3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether
26 to 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 requests that counsel be appointed so that his “interests may be protected by

1

2 the professional assistance required.” (ECF No. 3). Upon review of the petition, the Court finds
3 that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and
4 that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely
5 complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the
6 interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel

7

8 (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:

December 28, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2