(HC) Shrader v. Garland

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS C. SHRADER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01229-AWI-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. (ECF No. 26) M. ARVIZA, 15 Respondent.

18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

20 On November 4, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel.

21 Doc. 26. In that filing, Petitioner argues that “[t]he government just keeps dragging this on for no valid reason except to keep Shrader incarcerated on an issue of law,” and thereby “demands in the name of justice for immediate action.”

24 While there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings, the Court may appoint counsel it finds “the interests of justice so require.” See Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

27 Here, Petitioner has expressed his frustration with how long it takes to evaluate his petition but otherwise fails to articulate reasons why the interests of justice warrant appointment | of counsel. Thus, for instance, he suggests neither that the legal issues raised by the petition are | overly complex or that his ability to investigate or present the case is handicapped without || representation.

4 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ November 9, 2022 | Ww VL D R~ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE