(HC)Apolinar v. Madden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL APOLINAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-00217-ADA-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 26) 14 RAYMOND MADDEN, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 15 Respondent. TO UPDATE PETITIONER’S ADDRESS 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 26.) 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). /// ene IIE III IIE II ISIE IE 1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he “do[es] not understand 2 | anything that is happening,” he “do[es]n’t know what to do or what’s going on.”! (ECF No. 26 at The Court notes that at this stage of the proceeding, there is no pending deadline for 4 | Petitioner, the matter has been submitted to the Court, and the Court will rule on the petition in 5 | due course. Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a 6 | sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those 7 | claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not 8 | demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the 9 | appointment of counsel at the present time. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 26) is DENIED; and 12 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update Petitioner’s address as stated in the motion 13 to appoint counsel. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 16 | Dated: _ September 13, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | 1 The Court notes that Petitioner’s uncertainty regarding the status of his case may be a result of him not updating his address with the Court. Mail previously has been returned to the Court as undeliverable, and the address on the 28 | motion to appoint counsel is different from the address on file with the Court.