Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR EXONERATION AND 

RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

(Doc. No. 85)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 87)

Petitioner Michael Alan Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Before the Court is 

Petitioner’s “motion to exonerate him immediately as to all (6) six counts” and “order an 

unconditional release” (Doc. No. 85) and Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 

No. 87). 

A. Motion for Exoneration and Immediate Release

In support of this motion to exonerate and for immediate release, Petitioner generally 

restates the argument asserted in his Petition, and also notes that it has been “six months ago [sic] 

this Court last ruled and this case is outstanding.” (Doc. No. 85 at 1). To the extent Petitioner is 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 88 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

attempting to expand on arguments in his Petition, neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

nor the Local Rules provide for the right to file additional pleadings outside those described in 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Moreover, “[b]ail pending a decision in a habeas case is reserved for 

extraordinary cases involving special circumstances or a high probability of success.” Land v. 

Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 318 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated 

special circumstances warranting his release or a high probability of success on the merits of his 

petition. Accordingly, his request is denied.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th 

Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to 

appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court 

determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. 

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has 

authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for 

effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 

Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8(c). Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated 

that appointment of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner was able to 

file his habeas petition and numerous motions throughout the proceedings without the aid of 

counsel. Further, the Court finds the circumstances of this case at this time do not indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner’s motion for exoneration and immediate release (Doc. No. 85) is DENIED. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 87) is DENIED.

Dated: April 4, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 88 Filed 04/04/23 Page 2 of 2