(HC)Kahaku v. Covello ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL KAHAKU, Case No. 1:21-cv-01597-JLT-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 PATRICK COVELLO, WARDEN, (Doc. No. 16) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the court is petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and to appoint counsel. 18 (Doc. No. 16). Petitioner, a state prisoner, has pending a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner generally contends that “[i]n light of 20 Rules 6 and 8 governing § 2254 proceedings, this Court should order an evidentiary hearing and 21 appoint counsel to assist petitioner.” (Doc. No. 16). 22 A. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 23 Evidentiary hearings are granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. 24 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Although Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, the Court 25 has not yet reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the briefing and make findings and 26 recommendations in due course. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, 27 it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 28 1 2 B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 4 | Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th 5 | Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to 6 | appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court 7 | determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. 8 | Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 9 | in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has 10 | authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for 11 | effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 12 | Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). 13 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 14 | of counsel is necessary. Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition, a motion to stay, and a 15 | response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss without the aid of counsel, and the Court finds that 16 | the claims raised therein do not appear to be complex. Further, the Court does not find the 17 | circumstances of this case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process 18 | violations. Provided Petitioner meets the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the Court will 19 | consider appointing counsel to represent Petitioner if, after reviewing the record in further detail, 20 | the Court later finds good cause to permit discovery or decides that an evidentiary hearing is 21 | warranted in this matter. 22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 23 Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 24 16) is DENIED without prejudice. °° | Dated: __April 8, 2022 law Nh. fareh Sass □□□ 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28