Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01949/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01949-7/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

JOSE LUIS SOLORZANO,

Petitioner,

vs.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:08-cv-01949 YNP (HC) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

[Docs. #41, 42, 45]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 30, 2009, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to have counsel appointed. 

(Doc. #15.) On March 3, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s

denial. (Doc. #20.) On May 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities

in support of his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. #28). On May 27, 2009, the Court denied both

of Petitioner’s pending motionsfor reconsideration regarding appointment of counsel. (Doc. #29.)

On August 19, 2009, Petitioner filed two more motions for reconsideration to appoint

counsel and to give him a period of two years in which to learn habeas law. (Docs. #41, 42.) On

December 2, 2009, Petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration to appoint counsel. (Doc.

#45.) On that same day, Petitioner also filed a motion for a sixty day extension in which to file a

traverse. (Doc. #46.) 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counselin habeas proceedings.

See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958);

Case 1:08-cv-01949-MJS Document 48 Filed 02/25/10 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

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. In the present case, the

Court has already found on two previous occasionsthat the interests ofjustice would not be served

by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

1) Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied (Docs. #41, 42, 45) and

2) Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days in which to file a traverse. (Doc. #46.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01949-MJS Document 48 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2