Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00172-3/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

Before the court is Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 23). Petitioner, a 

state prisoner, has pending a pro se amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 14). Petitioner requests the court to appoint counsel to represent him

because he has no legal training, he is unable to write a legal argument or research relevant 

authority relevant to his claims, and the complexity of the case is “such that denial of counsel 

would amount to a denial of due process.” (Doc. No. 23).

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 § 2241 when the “court 

determines 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

KENNETH JAMES WEST,

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

1:22 -cv-00172-ADA-BAK (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 23)

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 25 Filed 09/27/22 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

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).

Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 

of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner was able to file his amended 

habeas petition and respond to Respondent’s motion to dismiss without the aid of counsel. 

Further, the Court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate that appointed counsel is 

necessary to prevent due process violations. 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. 23) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

Dated: September 26, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00172-KES-CDB Document 25 Filed 09/27/22 Page 2 of 2