(HC) Broadnax v. Newsom

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 COTTRELL BROADNAX, Case No. 1:23-cv-00064-NODJ-SKO (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. [Doc. 42] 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Respondents.

16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On January 4, 2024, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 20 (Doc. 41.) On January 9, 2024, Petitioner renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. 21 (Doc. 42.) As previously stated, there exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in 22 habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell 23 v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 24 authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so 25 require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court 26 does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Petitioner is clearly 27 able to litigate his case based on his numerous filings; however, he refuses to comply with the 1 horizontally across his papers, writing in the margins, obscuring his documents with 2 thumbprints, and failing to print legibly. See Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of 4 counsel is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 Dated: January 10, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27