Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00004/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00004-10/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)

---

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER - 1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HERMAN GARCIA SANDOVAL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MIKE MARTEL, Warden, 

Respondent. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

 

The present matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s request for appointment of 

counsel. (See Docket 46.) After careful consideration of Petitioner’s request, the governing 

authorities and the balance of the record, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

 (1) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 46) is DENIED. There is 

no right to have counsel appointed in habeas cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an 

evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 

1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Rule Governing 

§ 2254 Cases in U.S. District Courts 8(c). An evidentiary hearing is required only if (1) the 

 

Case 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW Document 48 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 2
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER - 2 

 

JOHN L. WEINBERG 

United States Magistrate Judge 

petitioner’s allegations, if proved, would establish the right to relief; and (2) the state court 

trier of fact has not, after a full and fair hearing, reliably found the relevant facts. Van Pilon v. 

Reed, 799 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court may also exercise its discretion to 

appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the “interests of justice so require.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 

 Here, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of showing that appointment of counsel 

is appropriate. This case has been fully briefed, no evidentiary hearing is required, and 

petitioner would not benefit from appointment of counsel at this time. Because appointment 

of counsel is not appropriate, petitioner’s request is DENIED. 

 (2) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for 

respondent, and to the Ricardo S. Martinez. 

DATED this 4th day of August, 2010. 

A 

Case 2:07-cv-00004-RSM-JLW Document 48 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2