Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00436-0/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

JORGE TRINIDAD,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00436- GSA (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On the same date that he filed his petition, Petitioner filed a 

motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). 

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. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 

773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional 

circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

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

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

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because the case involves substantial 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 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

and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions, he lacks education, his case 

will probably require the assistance of experts in proving the claims, he is indigent and is not in 

the position to investigate crucial facts, and the truth is more likely to be exposed where both 

sides are represented by those trained in the presentation of evidence. Upon a review of 

Petitioner’s petition, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the instant motion for the 

appointment of counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his claims for 

habeas relief and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate those claims 

adequately at this time. Furthermore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on 

the merits such that his case should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance.” See

Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. Therefore, in the present case, the Court does not find that the 

interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00436-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 2