From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC

07-13-2018

RAYMOND WATKINS, Petitioner, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 12)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12).

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, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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).

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ("The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by" 28 U.S.C. § 2254.). --------

Upon review of the petition and Petitioner's numerous submissions to the Court, 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. As it appears that abstention pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), may be required, 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. 12) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13 , 2018

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Superior Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Watkins v. Tuolumne Cnty. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND WATKINS, Petitioner, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 13, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-EPG-HC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2018)