Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00979/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00979-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS ALLEN WARE,

Petitioner,

v.

R.L. GOWER,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-0979 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel, on the grounds that he has a low TABE 

score (3.0), has no legal training, has limited access to the prison law library, and does not have 

the financial resources to retain legal counsel or maintain the representation of his appellate 

counsel. (ECF No. 13.)

There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. 

Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). While appointment of counsel may be warranted at 

any stage of a habeas proceeding “if the interests of justice so require,” see Rule 8(c), Fed. R. 

Governing § 2254 Cases; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the court finds that the interests of justice would 

not be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Petitioner’s indigence and lack 

of legal expertise do not, in themselves, warrant appointment of counsel, because these are 

circumstances shared by most prisoners. Petitioner’s additional concerns appear to be of minimal 

consequence at this stage of the proceedings. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition for 

Case 2:13-cv-00979-KJM-KJN Document 20 Filed 08/29/13 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

writ of habeas corpus, which substantively addresses the merits of the petition and petitioner’s 

underlying conviction. The answer does not assert any procedural bars to this action. Petitioner 

still has time to file and serve a reply (the current deadline is September 20, 2013), and the court 

will extend that deadline by this order. 

For these reasons, petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied at this 

time. If the court finds, upon review of the petition, answer and reply, that petitioner’s case is 

significantly compromised by his pro se status, the court may reconsider petitioner’s request for 

appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13), is denied without 

prejudice; and

2. Petitioner shall have until Friday, October 4, 2013, to file and serve his reply brief. 

Dated: August 29, 2013

/ ware0979.110

Case 2:13-cv-00979-KJM-KJN Document 20 Filed 08/29/13 Page 2 of 2