(HC) Clark v. Black ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-02017-WBS-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 12 14 CIDNY BLACK, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 12. A petitioner in a 18 habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right to appointment of counsel. See Nevius v. 19 Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the court is authorized to appoint counsel 20 at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 21 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In assessing whether to appoint 22 counsel, the court evaluates the petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to 23 articulate his claims, considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Weygandt v. 24 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 25 26 27 28 1 Having considered these factors, the court does not find that the interests of justice would 2 | be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to appoint 3 | counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied without prejudice. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 13, 2022 7 JEREMY D. PETERSON 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28