(HC) Griffin v. Doerer et al
Filing
10
ORDER DENYING 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 01/27/2025. (Deputy Clerk EF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
RAYMOND ALAN GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,
11
12
v.
13
DOERER, et. al.,
14
1:25-cv-00015-HBK (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Doc. No. 9)
Respondent.
15
16
17
18
Before the court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 9).
19
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus
20
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner requests the Court to appoint
21
counsel to represent him in this matter because he is unable to obtain documents, including
22
“exhibits and transcripts,” in support of his Petition. (Doc. No. 9).
23
There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See
24
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th
25
Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to
26
appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court
27
determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v.
28
Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
1
1
2
3
4
in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has
authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for
effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c).
5
6
7
8
Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment
of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner was able to file his habeas
petition without the aid of counsel. Further, the Court finds the circumstances of this case at this
time do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.
9
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
10
11
Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 9) is denied without
prejudice.
12
13
14
15
Dated:
January 27, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?