Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00476-1/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

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. 

In the present case, Petitioner raises due process claims premised upon instructional 

error and insufficiency of the evidence. There do not appear to be any further facts that 

need development. The case is fully briefed; Petitioner filed a substantial traverse setting 

forth argument and authority. The Court concludes that there are no circumstances 

requiring the appointment of counsel. The Court does not find that the interests of justice 

require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

JESSE PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

F. FOULK,

Respondent.

1:13 -cv-476 SKO (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document#21)

Case 1:13-cv-00476-SKO Document 22 Filed 07/10/14 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

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

of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00476-SKO Document 22 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 2