From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. Black

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 13, 2022
2:21-cv-02017-WBS-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-02017-WBS-JDP (HC)

06-13-2022

ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, Petitioner, v. CIDNY BLACK, et al., Respondents.


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF NO. 12

JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 12. A petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right to appointment of counsel. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the court is authorized to appoint counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In assessing whether to appoint counsel, the court evaluates the petitioner's likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate his claims, considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Having considered these factors, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, petitioner's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Clark v. Black

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 13, 2022
2:21-cv-02017-WBS-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)
Case details for

Clark v. Black

Case Details

Full title:ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, Petitioner, v. CIDNY BLACK, et al., Respondents.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 13, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-02017-WBS-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)