(HC) Dehart v. Eastern District Federal Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY COLE DEHART, Case No. 1:24-cv-00617-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Docs. 3, 6) 14 EASTERN DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner Jeremy Cole Dehart (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in 19 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). 20 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s two motions seeking Court appointment of counsel. 21 (Docs. 3, 6). In support of his motions, Petitioner advances the following grounds: (1) he has a 22 learning disability (Doc. 3 at 1); (2) he is on psychiatric medication (id.); (3) he has no legal 23 training (id.); (4) the legal issue brought in his petition is complex (id.); and (5) he lacks financial 24 resources to retain an attorney (Doc. 6 at 1). 25 Governing Legal Standard 26 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. 27 Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993). 1 for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2254 when the “court determines that 2 the interest of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 3 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 4 appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is 5 necessary to prevent due process violations.”). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 6 Cases in the United States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where 7 discovery is authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is deemed “necessary” to 8 facilitate effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is 9 warranted for the disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c). 10 Discussion 11 The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary 12 or warranted at this early stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves 13 a complex legal issue, the Court notes that the types of trial court rulings and ineffective 14 assistance of counsel issues implicated in this case are not unusual in habeas proceedings. The 15 undersigned has reviewed the petition and finds that Petitioner has articulated claims in a sensible 16 and coherent manner. Further, the undersigned notes Petitioner has demonstrated an ability to 17 review and comprehend orders of the Court. Specifically, when Petitioner’s earlier petition was 18 dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Petitioner promptly sought review of the 19 California Court of Appeals’ ruling on his appeal before the California Supreme Court, 20 presumably to comply with his obligation to pursue administrative exhaustion prior to filing suit 21 in federal Court. Cf. Dehart v. Fresno Super. Ct., No. 1:23-cv-01716-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., Doc. 22 6) with Doc. 1 at 2 (noting Petitioner’s review by California Supreme Court, No. S283286). 23 Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstances warrant the 24 appointment of counsel at this stage. Petitioner’s proffered difficulties arising from his 25 medication, lack of funds, learning disability, and lack of legal training are shared with many 26 other habeas petitioners. Petitioner’s summary assertion that he suffers from certain mental 27 health disorders (Doc. 3 at 1) does not constitute sufficient evidence of a mental incapacity that 1 | otherwise assessing whether the incapacity warrants appointment of counsel. 2 Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of this case do not indicate that appointed 3 | counsel is necessary or that failure to appoint counsel necessarily would implicate due process 4 | concerns. 5 Conclusion and Order 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for appointment of 7 | counsel (Docs. 3, 6) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 5, 2024 | Ww Vv R~ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28