(HC) Lin v. Valinken ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WEI LIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-01806-EPG-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 12 v. COUNSEL 13 RICHARD VALINKEN, et al., (ECF No. 3) 14 Respondents. 15 16 Petitioner Wei Lin is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 30, 2019, the Court received the instant motion for 18 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). 19 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 20 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 21 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 22 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 23 so require.” To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of 24 success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 25 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 26 1983). 27 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “has limited knowledge of the law and lacks expertise in the legal issues of his case.” (ECF No. 3 at 1). Upon review of the 1 | petition, the instant motion, and Petitioner’s other submissions to the Court, the Court finds that 2 | Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that 3 | he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely 4 | complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the 5 | interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 6 If, upon review of Respondent’s response to the petition, the Court finds that the legal 7 | issues are more complex than they appear currently, the Court will revisit Petitioner’s request for 8 | counsel. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 10 | counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. 13) Dated: _ January 8, 2020 [see ey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28