Medina v. Sullivan

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/22/2010. (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 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3em3ec April 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE vs. W. J. SULLIVAN, (DOCUMENT #20) 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. RAY MEDINA, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:09-cv-00488-OWW-SKO (HC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA