Covello
(HC) Scott v. Covello
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ELMAR K. SCOTT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01297-AWI-EPG-HC
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
13 v. (ECF No. 13) 14 COVELLO, 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 13). 19 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 20 See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 21 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 22 counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice 23 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether to 24 appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 25 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal…