Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00339-2/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

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

M. ATTCHLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 26)

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 26). 

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on June 8, 2021, and Petitioner filed a traverse on July

2, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 20, 23). Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is appropriate because

he cannot afford a lawyer, the issues in the case are complex, his “imprisonment will greatly limit 

his ability to litigate this case,” and he needs assistance of counsel to amend his petition. (Doc. 

No. 26). 

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. 

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 27 Filed 06/06/22 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

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).

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

of counsel is necessary. Petitioner was able to file his habeas petition and his traverse without the 

aid of counsel, and the Court finds that the claims raised therein do not appear to be complex. 

Further, the Court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate that appointed counsel is 

necessary to prevent due process violations. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED.

Dated: June 6, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 27 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 2