Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00617/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00617-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY COLE DEHART,

Petitioner,

v.

EASTERN DISTRICT FEDERAL 

COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00617-CDB (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docs. 3, 6) 

Petitioner Jeremy Cole Dehart (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in 

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s two motions seeking Court appointment of counsel. 

(Docs. 3, 6). In support of his motions, Petitioner advances the following grounds: (1) he has a 

learning disability (Doc. 3 at 1); (2) he is on psychiatric medication (id.); (3) he has no legal 

training (id.); (4) the legal issue brought in his petition is complex (id.); and (5) he lacks financial 

resources to retain an attorney (Doc. 6 at 1).

Governing Legal Standard

There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel 

Case 1:24-cv-00617-CDB Document 8 Filed 12/05/24 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

for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that 

the interest of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 

1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 

necessary to prevent due process violations.”). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where 

discovery is authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is deemed “necessary” to 

facilitate effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is 

warranted for the disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c).

Discussion

The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary 

or warranted at this early stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves 

a complex legal issue, the Court notes that the types of trial court rulings and ineffective 

assistance of counsel issues implicated in this case are not unusual in habeas proceedings. The 

undersigned has reviewed the petition and finds that Petitioner has articulated claims in a sensible 

and coherent manner. Further, the undersigned notes Petitioner has demonstrated an ability to 

review and comprehend orders of the Court. Specifically, when Petitioner’s earlier petition was 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Petitioner promptly sought review of the 

California Court of Appeals’ ruling on his appeal before the California Supreme Court, 

presumably to comply with his obligation to pursue administrative exhaustion prior to filing suit 

in federal Court. Cf. Dehart v. Fresno Super. Ct., No. 1:23-cv-01716-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., Doc. 

6) with Doc. 1 at 2 (noting Petitioner’s review by California Supreme Court, No. S283286).

Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstances warrant the 

appointment of counsel at this stage. Petitioner’s proffered difficulties arising from his

medication, lack of funds, learning disability, and lack of legal training are shared with many 

other habeas petitioners. Petitioner’s summary assertion that he suffers from certain mental 

health disorders (Doc. 3 at 1) does not constitute sufficient evidence of a mental incapacity that 

could prompt the Court to consider the appropriateness of ordering a competency hearing or 

Case 1:24-cv-00617-CDB Document 8 Filed 12/05/24 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

otherwise assessing whether the incapacity warrants appointment of counsel.

Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of this case do not indicate that appointed 

counsel is necessary or that failure to appoint counsel necessarily would implicate due process 

concerns.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for appointment of 

counsel (Docs. 3, 6) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:24-cv-00617-CDB Document 8 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 3