(HC) Quill v. State of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOPHIA QUILL, No. 2:21-CV-1044-DMC-P

Petitioner,

ORDER v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3.

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” In the present case, Petitioner offers no compelling evidence of the need for appointed counsel, and the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. While Petitioner states that she is incarcerated, indigent, untrained in the law, and unable to go to the prison law library due to sickness, these circumstances do not warrant the appointment of counsel. In this regard, the Court notes that Petitioner is articulate and has been able to present her claims cogently. To the extent Petitioner’s circumstances justify additional time to comply with deadlines, the Court will entertain appropriate requests once deadlines have been set.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 3, is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed.

Dated: August 27, 2021 Ssvcqo_

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE