Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ulises Sanchez Cardenas
Petitioner
William Muniz
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

ULISES SANCHEZ CARDENAS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01405-GSA-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 3)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment 

of counsel. (ECF No. 2). 

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 Cases. The court should only appoint counsel under “exceptional 

circumstances” and after evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because the petition raises very serious 

Case 1:15-cv-01405-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/18/15 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

constitutional claims and because Petitioner does not have the ability to adequately present the 

issues. Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this time such 

that his case should be classified as an “exceptional circumstance.” See Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 

954. 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 motion for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01405-DAD-EPG Document 6 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2