Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00094-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE LEE PARKS, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT FOX,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00094- EPG-HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 2)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 wherein he challenges his 2008 conviction in the Fresno County 

Superior Court. (ECF No. 1). The instant petition fails to set forth Petitioner’s grounds for habeas 

relief and therefore is subject to dismissal. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases (“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petition is not 

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition . . .”). In the section of 

the petition where specific grounds for relief must be identified along with supporting facts, 

Petitioner wrote “See attached Habeas Corpus and Opening brief submitted with this Federal 

Habeas Corpus petition,” but failed to include any attachment. (ECF No. 1 at 4).1Therefore, the 

Court will grant Petitioner the opportunity to file the missing attachment to supplement the 

instant petition.

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner also has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2). There currently 

exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. 

Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 

1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 

of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 

8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to appoint counsel, the 

“court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt 

v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he is developmentally 

disabled and has low cognitive functioning, which makes it difficult for Petitioner to read, write, 

and understand legal issues and material regarding his case. (ECF No. 2 at 1). The Court notes 

that Petitioner submitted his petition and the motion for appointment of counsel with the 

assistance of a Library Technical Assistant. (ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 2 at 3). At this point in the 

proceeding, the Court cannot “evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved” since Petitioner has failed to identify his grounds for habeas relief in the instant 

petition. Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. Therefore, the Court does not find that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice; and

2. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall 

file the “Habeas Corpus and Opening brief” which he failed to attach to the instant 

petition. 

Petitioner is forewarned that if he fails to file the missing attachment within the forty-five 

(45) day time frame, the Court will recommend dismissal of the instant petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 5 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 3