Hatton

(HC) Castillo v. Hatton

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 21, 20191:18-cv-00251California658 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRANK R. CASTILLO, Case No. 1:18-cv-00251-LJO-JDP Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. ECF No. 28 HATTON,

ORDER GRANTING THIRTY-DAY

Respondent. EXTENSION OF TIME ECF No. 29 17 Petitioner Frank Castillo, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the court are petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 28, and motion for extension of time, ECF No. 29. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel, stating that he is indigent and has a low level of education. ECF No. 28. A petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have an absolute right to counsel. See Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958) (stating that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to habeas petitions because they are civil actions). There are three specific…

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.