(HC) Poslof v. Attchley ( 2022 )

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-JLT-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. No. 26) 14 M. ATTCHLEY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 26). 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 June 8, 2021, and Petitioner filed a traverse on July 20 2, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 20, 23). Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is appropriate because 21 he cannot afford a lawyer, the issues in the case are complex, his “imprisonment will greatly limit 22 his ability to litigate this case,” and he needs assistance of counsel to amend his petition. (Doc. 23 No. 26). 24 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 25 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th 26 Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this Court to 27 appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court 28 determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. 1 | Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 2 | in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has 3 | authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for 4 | effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 5 || Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). 6 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 7 | of counsel is necessary. Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition and his traverse without the 8 | aid of counsel, and the Court finds that the claims raised therein do not appear to be complex. 9 | Further, the Court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate that appointed counsel is 10 | necessary to prevent due process violations. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 12 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED. 13 "| Dated: _ June 6, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28