(HC) Wilhelm v. People of the State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVE WILHELM, Case No. 1:20-cv-01659-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 2) 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2). 20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 21 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 22 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 23 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 24 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to 25 appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 26 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 27 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). /// 1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because the issues in this case are 2 | complex (requiring significant research and investigation) and he has limited access to the law 3 | library and limited knowledge of the law. (ECF No. 2 at 2). Upon review of the petition and the 4 | instant motion for appointment of counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a 5 | sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those 6 | claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not 7 | demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the 8 | appointment of counsel at the present time. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 10 | counsel (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. 13] Dated: _ December 11, 2020 [see ey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28