Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01990/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01990-3/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

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

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Petitioner,

v.

LYDIA ROMMORO, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01990-LJO-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 23)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 19, 2014, Petitioner filed his petition in the Sacramento 

Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1). 

On June 27, 2014, Petitioner filed his first amended petition in the Sacramento Division. (ECF 

No. 8). On July 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge in Sacramento issued a findings and 

recommendation to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF 

No. 13). Petitioner subsequently filed an affidavit in support of his objections. (ECF No. 16). 

On December 12, 2014, this action was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 17). The 

Magistrate Judge in Sacramento transferred the case to Fresno because Petitioner articulated in 

his objections that he was challenging the amended judgment issued from the Fresno County 

Superior Court and not the execution of his sentence. (ECF No. 17). 

On March 6, 2015, this Court issued an order for Petitioner to show cause why the 

Case 1:14-cv-01990-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/26/15 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

petition should not be dismissed for violating the limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

(ECF No. 22). On March 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause and a 

motion for appointment counsel. (ECF Nos. 23 & 27). 

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.

In the instant case, Petitioner requests counsel “in order to uphold the hands of justice.” 

(ECF No. 23 at 2). Upon a review of the petition, the Court does not find that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01990-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 2