Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01652/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01652-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEFAN E. EVANS,

Petitioner,

vs.

SOTO,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:12-cv-01652-LJO-BAM (HC) 

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION TO BE IN

PART OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 19) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #19)

On March 28, 2013, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground

that it had been filed outside the one-year statute of limitations. On April 24, 2013, Petitioner

filed a paper that he described as a motion to excuse harmless negligence and a motion to

appoint counsel. Review of the paper shows that although it is in part a motion for the

appointment of counsel, it constitutes opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion is CONSTRUED in part as opposition to Respondent’s motion

to dismiss the petition.

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, 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

Case 1:12-cv-01652-LJO-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/29/13 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

Cases. 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 29, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

3em3ec UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-01652-LJO-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/29/13 Page 2 of 2