Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00314/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00314-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudy Preston Maes
Petitioner
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent

Document Text:

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

RUDY PRESTON MAES,

Petitioner,

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:06-cv-00314-LJO-TAG (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 11)

On March 21, 2006, Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was transferred to

this Court from the Southern District of California. (Doc. 1). On April 1, 2008, the Magistrate

Judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition because it contained

unexhausted claims and because it was untimely by over seven years. (Doc. 8). On April 29,

2008, the District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations (Doc. 9), and judgment

was entered against Petitioner. (Doc. 10). The case was closed at that point. 

On October 7, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant motion for the appointment of

counsel. (Doc. 11). In his handwritten explanation for why counsel should be appointed,

Petitioner indicates that he is mentally ill and has been in the Enhanced Observation Program

for mentally ill inmates. (Doc. 11, p. 2). Petitioner also alleges that he has been in various

mental hospitals throughout California, that he is presently mentally incompetent, that he is

“very very slow” and functions “only because I’m on medications.” (Id. at p. 2). Petitioner

goes on to allege that his constitutional rights were violated, specifically his “Miranda” rights,

presumably during the proceedings for which the original habeas petition was filed. (Id. at p.

Case 1:06-cv-00314-LJO-TAG Document 12 Filed 10/09/08 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

3). Petitioner attaches to his motion a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

recommendations to dismiss the petition on exhaustion and timeliness grounds.

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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S.

889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). 

However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 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. Here, the case has been closed for almost six months and there are presently no pending

proceedings relating to Petitioner for which counsel could be appointed. Accordingly, the

Court must conclude that the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of

counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request

for appointment of counsel (Doc. 11), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00314-LJO-TAG Document 12 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 2