Abston v. Eichenberger
ORDER DENYING 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/24/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
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 vs. KENT EICHENBERGER, et al., (DOCUMENT #33) Respondent. ____________________________________/ 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: 23ehd0 August 24, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE NANCY ABSTON, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:08-cv-01483-SMS (HC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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?