Opinion
1:21-cv-01507-SAB-HC
12-21-2021
DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. BRANDON PRICE, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 13)
Petitioner, who is civilly committed to Coaling State Hospital, is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13). There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because he has limited access to the law library due to the COVID-19 pandemic and “is trying to file this motion seeking the setting of a trial date.” (ECF No. 13 at 2). The Court notes that at this stage of the proceeding, the only pending deadline is for Petitioner to respond to the Court's order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. This requires Petitioner to inform the Court whether the claims raised in the federal petition have been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, provide the Court with a copy of the petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes the claims now presented and a file stamp showing that the petition was indeed filed in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner's response does not require substantial, if any, time in the law library, and a court hearing is not necessary.
Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.
Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits such 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 (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.