Carpenter v. Holland

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/24/15 denying Motions to Appoint Counsel 21 , 24 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN WARREN CARPENTER,

12

No. 2:14-cv-0692 JAM AC P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

KIM HOLLAND,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 21, 24. There currently

18

exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner,

19

105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of

20

counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R.

21

Governing § 2254 Cases. The court’s determination of whether the interests of justice require

22

appointment of counsel is guided by an assessment of the petitioner’s ability to articulate his

23

claims, the complexity of the legal issues, and the likelihood of success on the merits. Weygandt

24

v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).

25

Petitioner’s request for counsel appears to be primarily based on his lack of legal

26

knowledge. See ECF Nos. 21, 24. Here, the court notes that the more complex claims included

27

in the instant § 2254 petition were briefed by counsel in the habeas petition submitted to the

28

California Supreme Court. See ECF No. 1 at 6-12, 30-61. Petitioner’s remaining claims concern

1

allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel as well as ineffective assistance of appellate

2

counsel for failure to raise various claims on appeal. See ECF No. 1 at 13-27. Petitioner has

3

been able to sufficiently articulate these claims and the issues are not inherently complex. At the

4

present time, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by appointment

5

of counsel. The court will therefore deny petitioner’s request without prejudice to its renewal

6

should circumstances change.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for appointment of

8

counsel (ECF Nos. 21 and 24) are denied without prejudice.

9

DATED: August 24, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2