Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 29)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the court is Petitioner’s 

motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 29). On May 10, 2021, the court directed Respondent to file 

a response to the petition. (Doc. No. 23). Respondent’s response is not yet due. (See Doc. No. 23 

at 2, directing response within sixty days). In his motion, Petitioner requests the court to appoint 

counsel to represent him because he is mentally impaired, lacks access to legal research materials, 

lacks funds for copying documents and postage, and he submits the issues in his case are complex. 

(See generally Doc. No. 29). 

There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 

1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint 

counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 36 Filed 05/25/21 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

that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 

States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized 

discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for effective 

discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Id. at Rs. 

6(a) and 8(c).

Petitioner does not indicate the nature of his alleged “mental illness” or how it affects his 

ability to prosecute this action. Indeed, a review of the pleadings filed by petitioner to date show 

he was able to file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel and articulate his claims. See 

Brown v. Reif, 2019 WL 989874, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) (denying appointment of counsel 

where the litigant’s filing demonstrate ability to properly litigate case despite mental illness). 

And, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the court does not find the issues are “so complex that due 

process violations will occur absent the presence of counsel.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 

428–29 (9th Cir. 1993). Based upon the record, the court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated 

that appointment of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. As noted, Respondent’s 

response is not yet due. Provided Petitioner meets the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the 

court will consider appointing counsel to represent Petitioner if the court later finds good cause to 

permit discovery or if the court decides that an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this matter.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 36 Filed 05/25/21 Page 2 of 2