IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 7, 2010
JAMES C. GAINES, PETITIONER,
M.D. MCDONALD, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There is no absolute right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, a district court may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 where "the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).*fn1 "Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations." Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
Petitioner contends that because he only has a ninth grade education, and his case has merit, he should be appointed counsel.
The court finds, at the present time, that appointment of counsel is not warranted. The issues appear to have been well articulated in the briefing. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's October 4, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel is denied.