(HC) Godfrey v. Warden PBSP ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA MICHAEL GODFREY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01197-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 39) 14 WARDEN, PBSP, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 39). 18 Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). 19 Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 28, 2021, and Petitioner filed a traverse on 20 December 2, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 38, 40). Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is 21 appropriate because Petitioner is unable to investigate crucial and disputed facts. (Doc. No. 39 at 22 7-9). On December 8, 2020, the Court denied Petitioner’s previous motion for appointment of 23 counsel. (See Doc. No. 27). 24 As noted in the Court’s previous Order, there is no automatic, constitutional right to 25 counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); 26 Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 27 3006A, however, authorizes this Court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who 28 seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. 1 | at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, 2 | the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts require the court to 3 || appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and 4 | appointment of counsel is necessary for effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined 5 | that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. /d. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). 6 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner still has not demonstrated that 7 | appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition and his 8 || traverse without the aid of counsel, and the Court finds that the claims raised therein do not 9 | appear to be complex. Further, the Court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate that 10 | appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Provided Petitioner meets the 11 criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the Court will consider appointing counsel to represent 12 | Petitioner if, after reviewing the record in further detail, the Court later finds good cause to permit 13 | discovery or decides that an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this matter. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED without 16 prejudice. 17 18 Dated: _ December 6, 2021 law ZA. foareh Zackte 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28