Trate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REGINALD L. MCCOY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00031-HBK (HC) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

v. COUNSEL B.M. TRATE, (Doc. No. 29) Respondent. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 29). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Petitioner filed a response. (Doc. Nos. 12, 26). On June 8, 2022, the Court directed Respondent to submit supplemental briefing as to a ground for relief raised in the Petition. (Doc. No. 27). Petitioner argues that appointment of counsel is necessary in order to “properly present his claims” in his reply to Respondent’s supplemental briefing. (Doc. No. 29). There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991);…