(HC) Quill v. State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOPHIA QUILL, No. 2:21-CV-1044-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the 19 appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3. 20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 21 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice 23 so require.” In the present case, Petitioner offers no compelling evidence of the need for 24 appointed counsel, and the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 25 appointment of counsel at the present time. While Petitioner states that she is incarcerated, 26 indigent, untrained in the law, and unable to go to the prison law library due to sickness, these 27 circumstances do not warrant the appointment of counsel. In this regard, the Court notes that 28 Petitioner is articulate and has been able to present her claims cogently. To the extent 1 | Petitioner’s circumstances justify additional time to comply with deadlines, the Court will 2 || entertain appropriate requests once deadlines have been set. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment 4 | of counsel, ECF No. 3, is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to 5 | the petition has been filed. 6 7 | Dated: August 27, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 8 DENNIS M. COTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28