(HC) Koenig v. Koenig

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES STANLEY KOENIG, No. 2:21-CV-1145-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. C. KOENIG, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s third motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 32.

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). However, 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. The docket reflects that Petitioner has been able to successfully amend his petition to assert only unexhausted claims, and that Respondent has filed an answer on the merits of those claims.

27 Further, the reasons argued by Petitioner in the current motion for counsel – lack of funds, lack of law library access, and lack of legal education – are not exceptional circumstances. Instead, | they are common among inmates challenging their convictions. By separate order, the Court | will grant Petitioner additional time to file a traverse.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s second motion for | appointment of counsel, ECF No. 32, is denied.

6 | Dated: April 26, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 7 DENNIS M. COTA 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE