(HC) McCoy v. Trate ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD L. MCCOY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00031-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL 14 B.M. TRATE, (Doc. No. 29) 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 29). 20 Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). 21 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Petitioner filed a response. (Doc. Nos. 12, 26). On 22 June 8, 2022, the Court directed Respondent to submit supplemental briefing as to a ground for 23 relief raised in the Petition. (Doc. No. 27). Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is 24 necessary in order to “properly present his claims” in his reply to Respondent’s supplemental 25 briefing. (Doc. No. 29). 26 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 27 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th 28 Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this Court to 1 | appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court 2 | determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. 3 | Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 4 | in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has 5 | authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for 6 | effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 7 | Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). 8 Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 9 | of counsel is necessary. Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition and his response to the 10 || Motion to Dismiss without the aid of counsel, and the Court finds that the claims raised therein do 11 || not appear to be complex. Further, the Court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate 12 | that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Petitioner may, but is not 13 || required to, file a response to Respondent’s supplemental brief within ten (10) days after receipt of 14 | Respondent’s supplemental brief. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED. 17 | Dated: _ June 26, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28