(HC) Clay v. Covello

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEMIANTRA MAURICE CLAY, No. 2:20-CV-2120-JAM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18.

20 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). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases, in the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Supporting his request, Petitioner cites circumstances common to the vast majority of habeas applicants – lack of legal education and indigency. Petitioner does not point to anything extraordinary about his case such that the Court can conclude the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Finally, a review of the petition, answer, and traverse on file suggests that Petitioner’s | claim is based on application of state law, which is not cognizable under § 2254.

2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment | of counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied. Petitioner’s fully briefed petition will be addressed | separately.

6 || Dated: August 30, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 7 DENNIS M. COTA 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE