(HC)Lawless v. Cates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KRISTOPHER WILLIAM LAWLESS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00523-JLT-EPG-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 12 v. PREJUDICE 13 BRIAN CATES, (ECF No. 12) 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner Kristopher William Lawless is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 14, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant 18 motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12). 19 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 20 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 21 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 22 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 23 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to 24 appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 25 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 26 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 27 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because the issues of his case are complex, he is in treatment for opioid use disorder and suffers from post-traumatic stress 1 | disorder, and counsel is needed for discovery and investigative purposes. Upon review of the 2 | petition and the instant motion for appointment of counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner appears 3 | to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 4 | articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and 5 | Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of 6 | justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. If, upon review of Respondent’s 7 | response to the petition, the Court finds that the legal issues are more complex than they appear 8 | currently, the Court will revisit Petitioner’s request for counsel. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 10 | counsel (ECF No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. 13] Dated: _ June 15, 2022 [see ey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28