Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL A. GOMEZ )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

_________________________________ )

1:05-CV-00652-OWW-TAG-HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 15)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On August 25, 2005, Petitioner filed a written motion requesting the appointment

of counsel. (Doc. 15). This is the second such motion Petitioner has filed in approximately

three months. On May 4, 2005, Petitioner filed his first motion for appointment of counsel.

(Doc. 3). The Court denied that motion on May 24, 2005. (Doc. 8). 

Then, as now, the Court advised Petitioner that there currently exists no absolute

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258

F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d

773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so

require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 10/14/05 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

As was true in May 2005, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would

be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Should circumstances change

such that it appears that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of

counsel, the Court, at that time, would reconsider its decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's second

motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 15), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 17 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2