(HC) Mendez-Barocio v. Valinken ( 2019 )

2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JUAN MENDEZ-BAROCIO, 1:19 -cv-01319 SKO (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 (Doc. 4) RICHARD VALINKEN, et al., 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no 18 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. 19 Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 20 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel 21 at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 23 Petitioner states he lacks education, knowledge of the law, and expertise in the legal 24 issues in this case. He claims the case is complex, he will have difficulty articulating his claims, and he cannot afford an attorney. These circumstances are not exceptional in that 25 most prisoners share them. Moreover, the pleadings that Petitioner has filed to date – 26 petition (Doc. 1), declaration (Doc. 2), motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), 27 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 4), and motion for stay of removal (Doc. 5) – are 28 well pled and belie the argument that Petitioner cannot effectively articulate his claims. 2 Therefore, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 3 counsel at the present time. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment 5 of counsel is DENIED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 24, 2019 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28