Burboa v. Cate
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/20/2010. (Lundstrom, T)
(HC) Burboa v. Cate
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. MATTHEW CATE, [Doc. 14] 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. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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 require 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: 92b0h September 20, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JUAN DEDIOS BURBOA, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:09-cv-01694-LJO-MJS (HC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Michael J. Seng
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?