Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01208-5/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

THOMAS EZERKIS, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

 v. )

 )

G.J. GIURBINO, Warden, et al., )

 )

 )

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-1208-LJO-TAG HC 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. 21)

Petitioner Thomas Ezerkis (“Petitioner”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. 

On November 26, 2007, respondents G.J. Giurbino, et al. (“Respondents”) filed an answer

to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and lodged various documents and transcripts with

the Court. (See Docs. 18, 19, 20). On December 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment

of counsel. (Doc. 21). On that same day, Petitioner also filed a request for a 90-day extension of

time to file a response to the answer, i.e., a traverse. (Doc. 22). On the date of this Order, the Court

granted Petitioner a 30-day extension of time to file a traverse, and denied his request for a 90-day

extension of time. The instant motion for appointment of counsel is Petitioner’s second request for

appointment of counsel. (See Docs. 1-4, 8). 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in federal habeas corpus actions. 

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1991)(citing Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th

Cir. 1958) There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 

Case 1:05-cv-01208-LJO -JMD Document 23 Filed 12/26/07 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

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so

require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(b); see Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the instant

motion, Petitioner asserts two grounds for the appointment of counsel. First, Petitioner contends that

he “does not have the training nor resources to thoroughly investigate and research th[e] complex

issues” in this case. (Doc. 21). Second, Petitioner advises that he was recently diagnosed with

cancer of the bladder and due to ongoing medical problems he “may not be able to invest the time

and required in perfecting his appeal.” (Id.). 

 With respect to this case, Petitioner’s lack of legal training and resources is not sufficient

reason for the Court to appoint counsel to represent him. It appears to the Court from the pleadings

filed to date that Petitioner has a good grasp of the case and the legal issues involved and has

presented his claims adequately in the petition. With respect to Petitioner’s medical condition,

Petitioner has failed to provide the details of his diagnosis or explain how his current medical

condition will preclude him from proceeding appropriately in this case, including filing a traverse

should he choose to do so. After considering Petitioner’s motion and the circumstances of this case,

the Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at the present

time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel (Doc. 21) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01208-LJO -JMD Document 23 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 2