Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00119/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00119-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Davis
Respondent
Michael Eugene Thomas
Petitioner

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

MICHAEL EUGENE THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00119-LJO-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 20)

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 25, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment 

of counsel. (ECF No. 20). 

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 he does not have sufficient 

Case 1:15-cv-00119-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 09/30/15 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

knowledge of the laws in question. Upon a review of Petitioner’s petition, the instant motion for 

the appointment of counsel, and Petitioner’s other motions in this case, the Court finds that 

Petitioner has a sufficient grasp of his claims for habeas relief and the legal issues involved, and 

that he is able to articulate those claims adequately at this time. Furthermore, Petitioner does not 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this time. Therefore, 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00119-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2