Unknown

(HC) Foster v. Unknown

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 19, 20221:22-cv-00866California383 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARLOS R. FOSTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00866-HBK Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (Doc. No. 7) UNKNOWN, Respondent. 16 Before the court is Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 7). Petitioner, a state prisoner, has pending a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner requests the court to appoint counsel to represent him because he “has no experience on these procedures.” (Doc. No. 7). There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at §…

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.