Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01896-1/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 RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden at R.J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 22)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254, moves for appointment of counsel. In 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 contends that appointment of counsel is required because (1) he lacks the financial 

means to hire counsel; (2) he is inexperienced at legal matters; (3) his case is unduly complex and the 

record is voluminous; and (4) he has been unable to find counsel who will represent him without cost. 

He shares these four contentions with nearly all petitioners for writs of habeas corpus. Petitioner has 

competently filed his petition and reply to Respondent’s answer, presenting well-reasoned arguments 

supported by appropriate legal citations. Briefing of the case is complete and awaiting the Court’s 

decision.

Case 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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

Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel 

at this time. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01896-LJO-SKO Document 24 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2