Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00661-1/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

ARMANDO G. HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

RICHARD SUBIA, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-0661-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3). Petitioner contends that

he should be appointed counsel because of the complexity of his habeas case. (Id.). In his petition,

Petitioner raises claims of, inter alia, failure to investigate ineffective assistance of counsel,

sentencing error, and instructional error. (Id.). 

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

See e.g., Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481

(9th Cir. 1958). However, 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 issues raised by Petitioner, though serious, are neither complex nor so

unusual as to require the assistance of counsel. Therefore, 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 (Doc. 3) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00661-ALA Document 10 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 1