Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02097-0/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

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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, 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. 

Petitioner argues that the issues in his case are complex and difficult to understand, 

he has limited access to the law library and to help from other prisoners, and he needs to 

undertake unspecified discovery for a summary judgment motion.

A review of the docket shows that a motion to dismiss the petition for untimeliness 

is pending. The motion presents fairly straightforward issues of the running of the statute of 

limitations and tolling. Petitioner claims to have evidence of extraordinary circumstances 

that affect the timeliness of his petition. The Court notes that such evidence must 

JOSHUA ANDREW SOTO,

Petitioner,

v.

R.T.C. GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent.

1:13 -cv-02097 BAM (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document#14)

Case 1:13-cv-02097-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 04/03/14 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

necessarily be within the Petitioner’s own personal knowledge. Petitioner will have an 

opportunity to present his evidence when he files opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

In summary, in the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice 

require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

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

of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02097-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 04/03/14 Page 2 of 2