Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01080-1/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

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

RONALD BARR,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01080-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 11, 12)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 4). On August 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for 

appointment of counsel and a motion for discovery. (ECF No. 11, 12). 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

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). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment

of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional 

circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

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

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

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 3
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 is unable to afford an 

attorney, he is inexperienced in legal matters, and there is a lack of legal materials at the prison

law library. Upon a review of Petitioner’s petition and the motions filed in this case, the Court 

finds that Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his claims for habeas relief and the legal issues 

involved, and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately at this time. Petitioner’s 

conclusory claims relating to limited materials in the law library do not present exceptional 

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Furthermore, Petitioner does 

not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this time such that his case should be 

classified as an “exceptional circumstance.” See Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. Therefore, in the 

present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 

counsel at the present time. 

Petitioner also requests “discovery to collect evidence, the given factual evidence, 

production, and the inspection of all claims given in the petition.” (ECF No. 11). Although 

discovery is available pursuant to Rule 6, it is only granted at the Court’s discretion, and upon a 

showing of good cause. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); McDaniel v. United States 

Dist. Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 1997); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th

Cir. 1997); Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Good cause is shown “where 

specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts 

are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 

908-09 (citing Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 287 (1969). Discovery will not be allowed so that the 

petition can “explore [his] case in search of its existence,” looking for new constitutional claims. 

See Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999). If good cause is shown, the extent 

and scope of discovery is within the court’s discretion. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases.

Here, Petitioner does not state any specific requests for discovery. Petitioner has not 

shown that if he obtains the requested discovery and the facts are fully developed, he will be able 

to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. Therefore, as 

Petitioner has not made any specific requests for discovery and has not shown good cause for 

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

discovery, his motion must be denied without prejudice. 

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

counsel is DENIED without prejudice and Petitioner’s motion for discovery is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01080-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3