What is the test for a motion to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding?

There is 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." In some limited circumstances, a prisoner's intellectual impairment or deficient grasp of the legal issues at the center of his habeas case can justify appointment of counsel. But in ruling on a motion to appoint habeas counsel, the court has to consider more than the petitioner's competence as an advocate for himself. "In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (emphasis added). With only a conclusory statement that his case presents "complex issues," petitioner gives this court no factual substance on which it can make the required determination regarding appointment of counsel. Moreover, in light of the recommendation that the petition be dismissed as untimely, the court cannot find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The motion for counsel will be denied.

V. Summary