(HC) Poslof v. Attchley ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LONNIE LEE POSLOF, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-00339-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 14) 14 M. ATTCHLEY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the court is petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 14). Petitioner filed 18 a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 19 1). After conducting a preliminary review under Rule 4, the court directed respondent to respond 20 to the petition. (Doc. No. 12). Respondent’s response is not yet due. Petitioner requests that the 21 court appoint counsel to represent him in this case because he lacks the knowledge necessary to 22 litigate his case, that the facts of his case are complex, and that he is indigent. (Doc. No. 14 at 2). 23 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 24 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 25 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint 26 counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines 27 that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 28 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 1 | States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized 2 | discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for effective 3 | discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. /d. at Rs. 4 | 6(a) and &(c). 5 As noted supra, respondent has not yet responded to the petition. Based upon review of the 6 | record, the court finds petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary at 7 | this stage of these proceedings. The court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate that 8 || appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Further, petitioner was able to 9 | file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel, and the court finds that the claims raised therein 10 | do not appear to be complex. 11 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED 12 | without prejudice. Provided petitioner meets the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the court 13 | will consider appointing counsel to represent petitioner if the court later finds good cause to permit 14 | discovery or if the court decides that an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this matter. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2021 law Nh. fareh Base □□□ 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28