(HC) Griffin v. Price ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01507-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL 14 BRANDON PRICE, (ECF No. 13) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, who is civilly committed to Coaling State Hospital, is proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13). There currently exists no 20 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 21 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 22 However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 23 proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 24 3006A(a)(2)(B). To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the 25 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 26 pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 27 954 (9th Cir. 1983). /// 1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he has limited access to the 2 | law library due to the COVID-19 pandemic and “1s trying to file this motion seeking the setting 3 | of a trial date.” (ECF No. 13 at 2).! The Court notes that at this stage of the proceeding, the only 4 | pending deadline is for Petitioner to respond to the Court’s order to show cause why the petition 5 | should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. This requires Petitioner to 6 | inform the Court whether the claims raised in the federal petition have been presented to the 7 | California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in 8 | the California Supreme Court that includes the claims now presented and a file stamp showing 9 | that the petition was indeed filed in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner’s response does not 10 | require substantial, if any, time in the law library, and a court hearing is not necessary. 11 Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient 12 | grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those claims 13 | adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not 14 | demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the 15 | appointment of counsel at the present time. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 17 | counsel (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 20 | Dated: _December 21, 2021 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | | page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.