Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01489/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01489-1/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

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

29

30

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

29

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE M. LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01489-LJO-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 15)

Petitioner Jose M. Lopez, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel to assist in the preparation of his reply (traverse). 

Petitioner contends that he requires assistance due to unspecified complex issues and unspecified 

changes in applicable law.

In federal habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. See, 

e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th

Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice 

so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner 

has capably represented himself to this point, including his filing of a petition setting forth the same 

issues he now deems complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this 

advance stage of the proceedings.

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01489-LJO-SKO Document 16 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 1