(HC) Brown v. Baughman

Opinion

MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2:20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 6, 2020, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 16.) On April 5, 2021, the undersigned granted petitioner a sixty days extension of time to file his opposition. (ECF No. 26.) The undersigned ordered that no further extensions of time would be granted. (Id.) Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons stated herein, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the pending motion, petitioner alleges that he has multiple mental health diagnosis which impact his ability to conduct legal research and study. Petitioner also alleges that he has multiple medical issues, including chronic back pain and hand disfigurement, which impact his ability to perform legal work. Petitioner also alleges that he has four civil suits pending, which he is prosecuting in pro per, which require his attention. Petitioner also alleges that he has education classes and Bible Study classes which consume his time. Petitioner also alleges that he does not have documents he requires in order to oppose respondent’s pending motion to dismiss. Petitioner also alleges that he has limited law library access. While the undersigned is sympathetic to petitioner’s medical problems, they do not warrant appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s ability to prosecute four civil actions also suggests that he is able to prosecute the instant action despite these medical problems. Petitioner’s request for counsel on the grounds that his education and Bible classes and other pending lawsuits consume his time is not well supported. Petitioner has also not demonstrated that his alleged limited law library access warrants appointment of counsel at this time. If petitioner is unable to obtain documents necessary to oppose respondent’s pending motion to dismiss, he may file an appropriate motion with his opposition. Regarding his mental health, petitioner alleges that in 2011 he was diagnosed as showing signs of mood disorder, psychotic disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Petitioner alleges that in 2012, he was diagnosed with the same disorders. Petitioner alleges that in 2015, he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood as well as personality disorder. Petitioner alleges that in 2018, he was diagnosed with mood disorder and post- traumatic stress disorder. Petitioner allege that his mental disorders cause difficulty for him in concentrating and focusing. Petitioner alleges that he experiences severe anxiety at times, racing thoughts, difficulty sleeping, depression and many other symptoms. Petitioner is able to litigate four civil actions as well as attend school and Bible Study despite his mental health problems. Based on petitioner’s ability to participate in these activities, the undersigned finds that petitioner’s mental health problems do not warrant appointment of counsel. For the reasons discussed above, in the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 27) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. Dated: May 4, 2021 Frese Arn g KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE prow1746.110