Warden

(HC) Leavy v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20221:22-cv-00915California416 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

CARNELL A. LEAVY, 1:22-cv-00915-ADA-HBK (HC) Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WARDEN, (Doc. No. 10)

Respondent.

16 17 Before the court is Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 10). 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 the state courts “overlooked” or “missed” his argument on appeal and in his state habeas petition. (Doc. No. 10). 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…

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.