Opinion
2:21-cv-02234-GMN-VCF
10-21-2022
Rodney Hosino, Petitioner v. Tim Garrett, et al., Respondents
ORDER
Gloria M. Navarro, U.S. District Judge
In this habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner, Rodney Hosino, filed a motion for appointment of counsel with his habeas petition that the court overlooked when it screened the petition. ECF Nos. 1-4, 6. For reasons that follow, the court denies the motion.
There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1993). The decision to appoint counsel is generally discretionary. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.). However, counsel must be appointed if the complexities of the case are such that denial of counsel would amount to a denial of due process, and where the petitioner is a person of such limited education as to be incapable of fairly presenting his claims. See Chaney, 801 F.2d at 1196; see also Hawkins v. Bennett, 423 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1970). Hosino's petition presents the grounds on which he challenges his state criminal proceeding in a reasonably clear manner, and the legal issues do not appear to be particularly complex. Thus, appointment of counsel is not warranted in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-4) is DENIED.