Sherman
(HC) Banks v. Sherman
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LARRY BANKS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01225-EPG-HC
Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v. (ECF No. 3) STU SHERMAN, Respondent.
16 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3). 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…