Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01246/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01246-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT VARDANYAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01246-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3). There currently exists

no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v.

Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984). 

However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the

case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. 

In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the

appointment of counsel at the present time. Petitioner contends that he does not have access to

his own legal papers and his access to telephonic communication is limited. (Doc. 1, p. 2). 

Petitioner also contends that “[m]ost of the relevant facts are contained in the INS’s

administrative alien file, or ‘A-file’” to which Petitioner does not have access. (Id.). Finally,

Petitioner contends that should the Court order an evidentiary hearing, he would need

appointed counsel to represent him. (Id. at p. 3). 

On November 29, 2007, the Court issued an Order To Show Cause to Respondent

why the petition should not be granted. As part of that order, the Court required Respondent to

Case 1:07-cv-01246-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 11/29/07 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

file a copy of Petitioner’s A-file. Moreover, it does not appear that the issues raised in the

petition require additional documentation beyond what would normally be contained in the

A-file. Thus, Petitioner’s first two grounds for appointment of counsel are essentially moot. 

Moreover, should the Court determine at some point that an evidentiary hearing is necessary,

the Court would address whether or not Petitioner required appointed counsel at that time. 

However, at the present time, the circumstances of this case are not so compelling that the

Court could conclude that the interests of justice require appointing counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for appointment of

counsel (Doc. 3), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01246-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2