Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01237/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01237-4/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

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

29

30

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

29

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD C. HUGHES,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN MARTIN BITER,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-BAM HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 28)

Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254, moves for appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that recent modifications of his 

antidepressant medication render him unable to address the complex issues in preparing his reply 

(traverse).

In habeas proceedings, no absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. 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). Nonetheless, a court may appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so 

require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

In the above-captioned case, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require the 

appointment of counsel in this case at this time. The well-prepared petition submitted by Plaintiff 

presents issues that are no more complex than the issues submitted in the vast majority of petitions for 

writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court. Although Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts authorizes the filing of a reply (traverse) to the respondent's 

Case 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-SKO Document 29 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

29

30

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

29

30

answer, the petitioner is not required to file a reply. Further, a petitioner may not introduce issues in a 

reply (traverse). United States v. Cox, 7 F.3d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir. 1993). In this case, the grounds for 

relief have been well-briefed, and the record is complete but for the filing of the optional reply.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01237-LJO-SKO Document 29 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 2