Mucheru v. Attorney General, et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge William M. Wunderlich on 5/16/07. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(HC) Mucheru v. Attorney General, et al Doc. 7 Case 1:07-cv-00690-OWW-WMW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 JAMES MUCHERU, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Document 7 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:07-cv-00690 OWW-WMW-HC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Doc. 4] Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: bl0dc4 May 16, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?