Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00254-1/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

TANNEN SOOJIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00254-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3).

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, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 

counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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).

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because this case involves complex 

factual and legal issues, he lacks specialized legal education, and he is indigent and cannot 

Case 1:16-cv-00254-AWI-SAB Document 11 Filed 02/26/16 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

investigate crucial facts. Upon review of the petition and the instant request for appointment of 

counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner has a comprehensive grasp of his claims for habeas relief

and the legal issues involved, and that he is able to articulate those claims effectively. Further, 

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 request for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00254-AWI-SAB Document 11 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2