(HC) Relmon H. Davis III v. Sullivan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RELMON H. DAVIS, III, Case No. 1:20-cv-01270-DAD-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING 13 v. Doc. No. 6 14 W.J. SULLIVAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner’s pleading requesting appointment of counsel and evidentiary 18 hearing. (Doc. No. 6). Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking relief 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). The construed motion requests that the Court grant 20 Petitioner an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel but fails to provide any grounds to 21 support either request. 22 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 23 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 24 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this Court to appoint 25 counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines 26 that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 27 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 28 States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized 1 | discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for effective 2 | discovery; or (2) when the Court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. □□□ at 3 | Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). 4 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of 5 || counsel is necessary at this stage of these proceedings. The Court does not find the circumstances 6 | of this case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Further, 7 | Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel, and the Court finds that 8 | the claims raised therein do not appear to be complex. 9 Similarly, there is no right to an evidentiary hearing in habeas proceedings; only under 10 | limited circumstances are evidentiary hearings granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)Q@i). 11 | Because no response to the petition has yet been filed, it is premature to hold an evidentiary hearing. 12 | See R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 8(a). 13 Accordingly, Petitioner’s construed motion for appointment of counsel and evidentiary 14 | hearing (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice. Provided Petitioner meets the criteria set 15 | forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the Court will consider appointing counsel to represent Petitioner if 16 | the Court later finds good cause to permit discovery or if the Court decides that an evidentiary 17 || hearing is warranted in this matter. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: _ December 8, 2020 oe ZA. foareh 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28