Daniels v. Felker et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 3 , 8 Motions to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 2/2/2009. (Sondheim, M)

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. T. FELKER, et al, (DOCUMENTS #3 and #8) 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: j14hj0 February 2, 2009 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GENE M DANIELS, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:08-cv-01590-AWI-WMW (HC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA