UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 4, 2010
HERMAN GARCIA SANDOVAL, PETITIONER,
MIKE MARTEL, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John L. Weinberg United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
The present matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel. (See Docket 46.) After careful consideration of Petitioner's request, the governing authorities and the balance of the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 46) is DENIED. There is no right to have counsel appointed in habeas cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an evidentiary hearing is required. See Terravona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Rule Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. District Courts 8(c). An evidentiary hearing is required only if (1) the petitioner's allegations, if proved, would establish the right to relief; and (2) the state court trier of fact has not, after a full and fair hearing, reliably found the relevant facts. Van Pilon v. Reed, 799 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court may also exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for a financially eligible individual where the "interests of justice so require."
18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
Here, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of showing that appointment of counsel is appropriate. This case has been fully briefed, no evidentiary hearing is required, and petitioner would not benefit from appointment of counsel at this time. Because appointment of counsel is not appropriate, petitioner's request is DENIED.
(2) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent, and to the Ricardo S. Martinez.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.