(HC) Griffin v. Doerer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00015
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9

10 RAYMOND ALAN GRIFFIN, 1:25-cv-00015-HBK (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13 DOERER, et. al., (Doc. No. 9)

14 Respondent.

16 17 18 Before the court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 9). 19 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). Petitioner requests the Court to appoint 21 counsel to represent him in this matter because he is unable to obtain documents, including 22 “exhibits and transcripts,” in support of his Petition. (Doc. No. 9). 23 There is no automatic, constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. See 24 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th 25 Cir. 1958). The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes this court to 26 appoint counsel for a financially eligible person who seeks relief under § 2241 when the “court 27 determines that the interests of justice so require.” Id. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Chaney v. 28 Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts require the court to appoint counsel: (1) when the court has authorized discovery upon a showing of good cause and appointment of counsel is necessary for 5 effective discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 4 Id. at Rs. 6(a) and 8&(c). ° Based upon the record, the Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment 6 of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner was able to file his habeas 7 petition without the aid of counsel. Further, the Court finds the circumstances of this case at this 8 time do not indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 9) is denied without prejudice. 12 13 Dated: _ January 27, 2025 oe Uh. Sareh 5 14 HELENA M. SARCHLRUCHTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28