Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00679-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME I. ESTRADA,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00679-AWI-GSA (HC)

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 13, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel because it 

did not find that the interests of justice required the appointment of counsel at that time. (ECF 

No. 25). In that order, the Court noted that a findings and recommendation had been issued, but 

had not yet been adopted by the District Judge. (ECF No. 25). Subsequently, the District Judge 

adopted the findings and recommendation, denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and referred 

the matter back to the undersigned for further proceedings. (ECF No. 29). The Court then

ordered Respondent to file an answer to the petition and allowed Petitioner to file a traverse. 

(ECF No. 30). On May 19, 2015, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. (ECF No. 33). On 

June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a traverse. (ECF No. 34). The Court now reviews whether to 

appoint counsel to Petitioner at this time. 

Case 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 36 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional 

circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The decision to appoint counsel is 

within the discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 

1986).

In the present case, the Court has reviewed the record and finds that the interests of 

justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time due to Petitioner’s indigency

and given the complexity of the issues involved with respect to Petitioner’s first claim for relief.1 

In addition, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing as to why he believes he would be 

successful on the merits of his first claim for relief. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the 

Court grants Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. Counsel shall file a supplemental 

traverse regarding Petitioner’s first claim for relief. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted the appointment of counsel;

2. The matter is hereby referred to the Federal Public Defender’s Office to find counsel 

for Petitioner;

3. A notice of appearance shall be filed with the court by the attorney representing 

Petitioner within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order;

4. Within forty-five (45) days from the date that counsel is appointed, Petitioner’s 

 

1

Petitioner contends in his first claim for relief that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not 

communicate a plea deal of nineteen years that he would have taken had he known about it.

Case 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 36 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

counsel shall file a supplemental traverse with respect to Petitioner’s first claim for 

relief;

5. Respondent may file a reply to Petitioner’s supplemental traverse within twenty-one

(21) days of the date Petitioner’s supplemental traverse is filed; 

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Petitioner, the 

Federal Public Defender’s Office, and to Respondent; 

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of Petitioner’s habeas corpus 

petition (ECF No. 1), the answer (ECF No. 33), and the traverse (ECF No. 35) to the 

Federal Public Defender’s Office; and

8. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for copies 

of other documents in the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00679-DAD-EPG Document 36 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 3