Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00169/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00169-3/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

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

29

30

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

29

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE WILHELM,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., Warden,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00169-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 14)

On March 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the aboveentitled case and entered judgment for Respondent. On April 7, 2016, Petitioner, proceeding pro se,

filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On the same date, Petitioner moved this Court for

appointment of counsel. In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently 

exists. 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). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the 

interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases.

Petitioner contends that appointment of counsel is required since (1) he lacks the financial means 

to hire counsel; (2) he is unable to investigate his claims while incarcerated; and (3) his case is unduly 

complex. He shares these three conditions with nearly all petitioners for writs of habeas corpus. In 

addition, this Court has previously concluded that the petition, which sought to have the District Court 

review the denial of a petition for certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, is not within this 

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 18 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

29

30

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

29

30

Court’s jurisdiction and lacks merit. Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00169-SKO Document 18 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 2