(HC) Pink v. Schuyler

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DVONTAE LARONE PINK, Case No. 1:24-cv-00449-KES-SKO (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. [Doc. 16] Respondent.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Petitioner has demonstrated “the ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). He has filed a well-pled petition, and the Court has directed Respondent to file a response. ///// Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE