Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00044/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00044-3/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

XAVIER LUMAR J-WEIAL,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE LIZARRAGA, Warden,

Respondents.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00044-AWI-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 21)

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

§ 2254, moves the Court to reconsider its denial of his prior motion for appointment of counsel. 

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 his first motion, Petitioner contended that appointment of counsel was required because (1) he 

lacks the financial means to hire counsel; (2) he is unable to investigate his claims while incarcerated;

and (3) his case is unduly complex. Petitioner now contends that his ability to represent himself is 

impeded by mental illness, as evidenced by his inclusion as an outpatient in his institution’s mental 

health delivery system. Petitioner includes the declaration of LaSance Douglas, who has been assisting 

Petitioner with his legal work, but is now “up for transfer,” creating a situation in which Petitioner may

require assistance of a new individual to prepare his traverse. 

Case 1:16-cv-00044-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 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

Few inmates possess legal education, experience, or knowledge. As a result, the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provides law libraries and inmate assistants to facilitate 

inmates’ preparation of pro se pleadings and other legal documents for submission to court. Petitioner 

was able to work with such an assistant to prepare his clear and competent petition while he was 

confined at California State Prison-Corcoran before his transfer to Mule Creek State Prison, where Mr. 

Douglas now assists him. Similarly, Petitioner will be able to work with another inmate assistant even if 

Mr. Douglas is transferred from Mule Creek to a different institution. Accordingly, the Court finds no 

evidence that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at this time. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00044-AWI-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 2