Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01679/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01679-0/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

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

DANIEL ALLEN SANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01679-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 3)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). There currently exists no 

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 

F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 

However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 

proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether 

to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Case 1:16-cv-01679-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/16/16 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 argues that counsel should be appointed because he cannot afford to obtain 

counsel and he believes his petition states constitutional violations. Upon review of the petition

and the instant motion for appointment of counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have 

a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those 

claims adequately. Further, Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits 

such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01679-SAB Document 6 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2