Phonsongkham
Phonsongkham v. Moore
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANDY PHONSONGKHAM, Case No.: 24-cv-01566-LL-MMP
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
FIDENZIO N. GUZMAN, et al., [ECF No. 16] Respondents. 12 13 14 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 16. On September 3, 2024, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. After filing two failed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee to proceed with this action. ECF Nos. 2–7. Now Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 16. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). District courts have discretion, however, to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer …