(HC) Williams v. Lizarraga

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 6, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-00748·Unknown

Opinion

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00748-AWI-JDP Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND REFERRING MATTER TO v. FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE JOE LIZARRAGA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SERVE DOCUMENTS Respondent. Petitioner Lawrence Williams is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The court has granted reconsideration of its order denying appointment of counsel and now reevaluates whether to appoint counsel to petitioner. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). To determine whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 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). Petitioner is illiterate and suffers from schizophrenia. He is also deficient in communication and information processing. Petitioner’s mental impairments thus limit his ability to articulate his claims without counsel. Here, petitioner’s case also presents somewhat complex issues. His petition has survived a motion to dismiss, but the court has left the door open for further briefing on equitable tolling as well as review of the petition on the merits. See ECF No. 20at5. Thus, I find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel given the complexity of issues involved with respect to petitioner’s competency. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The matter is referred to the Federal Public Defender’s Office to find counsel for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 2. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, a notice of appearance shall be filed with the court by the attorney representing petitioner. 3. The clerk of court is directed to send a copy of this order to petitioner, the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and respondent. 4. The clerk of court is directed to send a copy of the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, ECF No. 1, and respondent’s answer, ECF No. 31, to the Federal Public Defender’s Office. ( Caan Dated: _ November 6, 2020 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC) Williams v. Lizarraga, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(HC) Williams v. Lizarraga ((HC) Williams v. Lizarraga) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related