(HC) Bettencourt v. Spencer

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/6/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

14
15

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Petitioner,

12
13

Case No. 1:20-cv-01833-EPG-HC

v.
GORDON SPENCER,

(ECF No. 2)

Respondent.

16
17

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

18 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2).
19

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

20 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d
21 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of
22 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice
23 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to
24 appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the
25 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
26 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
27

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because the issues in this case are

28 complex and he has a history of medical disabilities and psychiatric impairments. (ECF No. 2 at

1

1 1–2). Upon review of the petition and the instant motion for appointment of counsel, the Court
2 finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved
3 and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not
4 extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits
5 such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.
6

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

7 counsel (ECF No. 2) is DENIED.
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2