(HC) Scroggins v. Smith

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RANDY LEE SCROGGINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00519-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 14) STEVE SMITH, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner Randy Lee Scroggins (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s second motion for the Court to appoint counsel to represent him. (Doc. 14). In support of his motion, Petitioner advances the following grounds: (1) he lacks financial resources to retain an attorney; (2) he has no legal training; (3) the Court has ordered Respondent to respond to the petition and, thus, Petitioner must review the response to prepare his traverse; and (3) the legal issue brought in his petition and addressed in any response is complex and involves an unusual fact pattern. (Doc. 14 at 2-3).

25 There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th Cir. 1993).

27 However, the Criminal Justice Act 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the Court to appoint counsel for nen nnn eon nnn nn ee EI EO IE I interest of justice so require.” Jd. at § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 | (9th Cir. 1986) (“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.”). Moreover, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases | in the United States District Courts require the Court to appoint counsel: (1) where discovery is | authorized on a showing of good cause and counsel is deemed “necessary” to facilitate effective | discovery; or (2) when the court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is warranted for the | disposition of a petition. See Habeas Rules 6(a) and 8(c).

9 The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary | or warranted at this stage of proceedings. Although Petitioner asserts that this case involves a | complex legal issue and contains an unusual factual record, the Court notes that the types of trial | court evidentiary rulings and related Confrontation Clause issues implicated in this case are not | unusual in habeas proceedings. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown any exceptional || circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel at this stage. Petitioner’s proffered difficulties | with his lack of education and legal training are shared with many other habeas petitioners.

16 | Therefore, at this stage, the circumstances of this case do not indicate that appointed counsel is | necessary or that failure to appoint counsel necessarily would implicate due process concerns.

18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of | counsel (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

20 | IT IS SOORDERED.

Dated: _ August 25, 2025 | hr 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE