Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01256/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01256-0/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

DAVID VALENZUELA ARZATE,

Petitioner,

v.

CLARK E. DUCARTE,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01256-BAM HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 9)

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 states that the Office of the Federal Defender 

represents him in Arzate v. Holland, No. 1:09-cv-02156-MJS (E.D.Cal.) and Arzate v. Gonzales, No. 12-

17618 (9th Cir.),1and has assisted him in preparing state petitions to exhaust ground one of the petition. 

As a result, the Office of the Federal Defendant "could easily begin representation of [Petitioner] in this 

matter." Doc. 9 at 1.

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.

///

 

1 After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, it directed 

this Court to appoint counsel to represent Petitioner in his appeal. See Arzate v. Holland , Doc. 21 at 1 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 30, 

2013) (No. 12-17618), appeal pending sub nom. Arzate v. Gonzales, No. 12-17618 (9th Cir.).

Case 1:15-cv-01256-SKO Document 10 Filed 09/16/15 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

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 two 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. The Ninth Circuit's appointment of counsel to represent 

Petitioner with regard to the novel issue on which it granted a certificate of appealability does not 

mandate appointment of counsel in this case.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01256-SKO Document 10 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2