Beard v. Superior Court of Fresno County
ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Theresa A. Goldner on 5/14/07. (Lundstrom, T)
(HC) Beard v. Superior Court of Fresno County
Case 1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 14, 2007 j6eb3d ANTHONY MARCEL BEARD,
Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO ) COUNTY ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)
1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG-HC ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 3)
Petitioner has requested for the appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that he cannot afford to retain counsel and that his petition contains "novel and complex issues of federal law) requiring the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3, p. 1). 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.1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 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. At the present time, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3), is DENIED.
/s/ Theresa A. Goldner UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?