Gene Edward Evans v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00235
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENE EDWARD EVANS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00235-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 14) 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Gene Edward Evans (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). On August 13, 2025, 19 the undersigned entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending that the petition be 20 dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition. (Doc. 13). Within the time to file 21 objections to the Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner submitted an untitled filing 22 consisting of 26 hand-written pages, a photo of Petitioner, portions of transcripts, and copies of 23 various court documents. (Doc. 14). The undersigned construes the filing as a renewed motion 24 for appointment of counsel based on Petitioner’s lack of funds. (See id. at 4). 25 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 26 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 27 However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel 1 | the interest of justice so require.” Jd. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 2 | 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 3 | appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 4 || necessary to prevent due process violations.”). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 5 | Cases in the United States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where 6 || discovery is authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is deemed “necessary” to 7 | facilitate effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is 8 | warranted for the disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c). 9 The undersigned denied Petitioner’s previous request for appointment of counsel on 10 | March 12, 2025, noting that Petitioner had not shown that the issues in this case were complex 11 | and “Petitioner’s proffered difficulties arising from his lack of funds are shared with many other 12 | habeas petitioners.” (Doc. 11 at 2). Petitioner does not assert any additional facts that would 13 | alter this previous conclusion. Accordingly, the circumstances of this case still do not indicate 14 | that appointed counsel is necessary or that failure to appoint counsel would implicate due process 15 || concerns. 16 | Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s renewed motion for appointment 18 | of counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ September 15, 2025 | br Pr 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28