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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 16)

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

§ 2254, files a second motion 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. 16 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 17 Filed 01/25/16 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

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 petition, response, and reply are already complete. 

The well-prepared documents submitted by Plaintiff present 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 in another case 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: January 25, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01256-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2