Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00445/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00445-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CRUZ MADERO,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00445-JLT-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 11)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 5.) 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, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 

proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3006A(a)(2)(B). 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).

///

Case 1:24-cv-00445-JLT-SAB Document 12 Filed 07/24/24 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

Petitioner contends that counsel should be appointed because he knows “close to nothing 

about the law.” (ECF No. 11.) Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner 

appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 

articulate those claims adequately. Additionally, upon review of Respondent’s motion to dismiss, 

the legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a 

likelihood of success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of 

counsel at the present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel 

(ECF No. 11) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00445-JLT-SAB Document 12 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 2