(HC) Harris v. Frauenheim

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 2, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GERALD BRENT HARRIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01203-NONE-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL AND DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PROCEED 14 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, IN FORMA PAUPERIS

15 Respondent. (ECF Nos. 30, 31)

16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE TRAVERSE AS A SEPARATE 17 DOCUMENT

18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 22 Nos. 30, 31).1 As the Court previously authorized in forma pauperis status to Petitioner, the 23 request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. 24 With respect to Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel, there currently exists no 25 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 26 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 27 However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 1 | proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 2 | 3006A(a)(2)(B). To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the 3 | likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 4 | pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 5 | 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed because of the complexity of the 7 | issues raised in his petition, his lack of legal training and limited education, and his mental health 8 | issues. (ECF No. 30 at 1).? Upon review of the petition and Petitioner’s other submissions in this 9 | case, the Court finds that Petitioner appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal 10 | issues involved and that he is able to articulate those claims adequately. The legal issues 11 | involved are not extremely complex, and Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success 12 | on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present 13 | time. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 30, 31) is DENIED without 16 prejudice; 17 2. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot; and 18 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the traverse attached to the motion for 19 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 30 at 6-8) as a separate document. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 22 | Dated: _ July 1, 2021 _ Of 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28 | 2 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.