Valinken

(HC) Mendez-Barocio v. Valinken

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 20191:19-cv-01319California311 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

JUAN MENDEZ-BAROCIO, 1:19 -cv-01319 SKO (HC) Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 4) RICHARD VALINKEN, et al., 14 Respondent.

16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner states he lacks education, knowledge of the law, and expertise in the legal issues in this case. He claims the case is complex, he will have difficulty articulating his claims, and he cannot afford an attorney. These circumstances are not exceptional in that 25 most prisoners share them. Moreover, the pleadings that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.