Schanck v. U.S., 2:18-cv-0175 KJN P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180503e77
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 02, 2018
Latest Update: May 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. In this action, petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prisons has not complied with the order of Executive Clemency granted to petitioner by President Obama. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 8.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A(2)(B), whenever the court determines that the
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. In this action, petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prisons has not complied with the order of Executive Clemency granted to petitioner by President Obama. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 8.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A(2)(B), whenever the court determines that the i..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In this action, petitioner alleges that the Bureau of Prisons has not complied with the order of Executive Clemency granted to petitioner by President Obama. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 8.)
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(2)(B), whenever the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who is seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, or 2255. In determining whether the interests of justice require appointment of counsel, the court considers whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits and whether the unrepresented petitioner has the ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the issues presented. See Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
Petitioner has clearly articulated his claims. At this time, petitioner's claims do not appear to be particularly complex. For these reasons, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied.
Source: Leagle
