(HC)Harris v. Moore ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANIEL J. HARRIS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00601-BAK (EPG) (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 12 v. PREJUDICE 13 SEAN MOORE, (ECF No. 8) 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner Daniel J. Harris is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 5, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant request for 18 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 8). 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 he does not have a fair chance in the courts due to his ignorance of the law. Upon review of the first amended petition, the 1 | Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues 2 | involved and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are 3 | not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits 4 | such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. If, upon 5 | review of Respondent’s response to the petition, the Court finds that the legal issues are more 6 | complex than they appear currently, the Court will revisit Petitioner’s request for counsel. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for appointment of 8 | counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11} Dated: _ July 7, 2022 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28