Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-29/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 GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PETITION TO 

THE LIMITED EXTENT SET FORTH 

HEREIN

(Doc. No. 93)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 94)

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). Before the Court is Petitioner’s

request for a ruling (Doc. No. 93) and Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 

94). 

A. Motion for Ruling

The Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). And while the Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously 

as possible, this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” See

Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 95 Filed 09/01/23 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

Accordingly, Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and recommendations 

regarding his petition in due course. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for a ruling (Doc. No. 93) is 

granted to the extent that the Court will consider and review this matter as quickly as its caseload 

permits.

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).

Petitioner asks the Court to appoint counsel “due to his grave mental disability.” (Doc. 

No. 94). In support of his request, Petitioner attaches “findings and an order authorizing 

involuntary administration of psychiatric medication” from an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

authorizing involuntary psychiatric medication for the period of May 30, 2023 through May 30, 

2024. (Id. at 4-6). However, the Court notes that the findings submitted by Petitioner specifically 

note that only if he is not administered psychiatric medication, he is “gravely disabled, and lacks 

the capacity to consent or to refuse treatment with psychiatric medications.” (Id. at 5). 

Moreover, Petitioner has diligently represented himself in these proceedings without the aid of 

counsel. He was able to file his habeas petition, reply to the Answer filed by Respondent, and file 

no less than 25 documents with the Court including motions, requests for judicial notice, letters, 

and objections. (See generally docket). 

Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 

of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. See Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 95 Filed 09/01/23 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

1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A party proceeding pro se in a civil lawsuit is entitled to a competency 

determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.”). 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 review of the petition (Doc. No. 93) is GRANTED to the 

limited extent that the Court will review this case as expeditiously as possible in light 

of its current caseload. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 94) is DENIED.

Dated: September 1, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 95 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 3