Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00604/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00604-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GUERRA SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00604-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 4)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4).

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 

479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 

counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to

appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he cannot read, write, or 

speak English. Petitioner speaks Spanish, but does not have access to any Spanish versions of the 

Case 1:16-cv-00604-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/04/16 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

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Supreme Court precedent, or law 

books. Petitioner argues that he requires the services of interpreter to proceed with his habeas 

petition. 

Upon review of the petition, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the instant motion 

for appointment of counsel, the Court finds that with the assistance of fellow inmates, Petitioner 

appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 

articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and 

Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

If, upon review of Respondent’s response to the petition, the Court finds that the legal 

issues are more complex than they appear currently, the Court will revisit Petitioner’s request for 

counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00604-LJO-EPG Document 7 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2