Miguel Garcia Jr. v. C. Schuyler

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Miguel Garcia Jr.’s pro se motion to appoint counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceeding. The court concluded that Garcia could adequately articulate his claims, the issues were not unusually complex, and he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits warranting appointment under the interests-of-justice standard.

Holdings

1. Appointment of counsel was not required because there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings and Petitioner did not demonstrate that the interests of justice required counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the interests of justice required appointment of counsel for a pro se state prisoner pursuing habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Disposition

other