Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00339-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

M. ATTCHLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00339-HBK

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 14)

Before the court is petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 14). Petitioner filed 

a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 

1). After conducting a preliminary review under Rule 4, the court directed respondent to respond 

to the petition. (Doc. No. 12). Respondent’s response is not yet due. Petitioner requests that the 

court appoint counsel to represent him in this case because he lacks the knowledge necessary to 

litigate his case, that the facts of his case are complex, and that he is indigent. (Doc. No. 14 at 2). 

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 § 2254 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 in the United 

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 15 Filed 04/02/21 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

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).

As noted supra, respondent has not yet responded to the petition. Based upon review of the 

record, the court finds petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary at 

this stage of these proceedings. The court does not find the circumstances of this case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Further, petitioner was able to 

file his habeas petition without the aid of counsel, and the court finds that the claims raised therein 

do not appear to be complex. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED 

without prejudice. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00339-JLT-HBK Document 15 Filed 04/02/21 Page 2 of 2