Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00461/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00461-3/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

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

MIGUEL GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

F. FOULK, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00461-AWI-SKO HC

ORDER CLARIFYING DOCUMENT 30 AND 

DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 31)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for (1) clarification of the Court's September 11, 2015, order

(Doc. 30) directing Respondent to file supplemental information and (2) appointment of counsel.

The petition, response, and reply have been filed, and this case awaits decision. On 

September 11, 2015, however, the Court discovered that Respondent had inadvertently provided the 

wrong document in an exhibit purportedly including the decision of the California Court of Appeals. 

Accordingly, the Court ordered Respondent to file the proper document with the Court. The order 

explicitly stated that no action was required of Petitioner Miguel Garcia. After Respondent failed to 

file the document within the time ordered, the Court issued an order for Respondent to show cause 

why he should not be disciplined for failure to comply with the Court's order. Again, no action was 

required of Petitioner. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00461-AWI-SKO Document 33 Filed 09/30/15 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

Petitioner also moves 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 the above-captioned case, the Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require 

the appointment of counsel at this time. All requisite pleadings and briefs have been filed, and 

resolution of the petition awaits only the Respondent's submission of a missing state court document.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00461-AWI-SKO Document 33 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2