Thomas v. Hartley

Filing 28

ORDER Denying 26 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/2/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DENNIS THOMAS,
Petitioner,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.

9
10

1:09-cv-02252-LJO-MJS (HC)

JAMES HARTLEY, Warden,
(Doc. 26)
Respondent.

11
12

_________________________________/

13

On September 29, 2011 Petitioner filed a request for a form to fill out to request the

14

appointment of counsel. Liberally construing the request, the Court shall consider the filing as

15

a motion for the appointment of counsel.

16

appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479,

17

481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18

18

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the

19

interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the

20

present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of

21

counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request

22

for appointment of counsel is denied.

There currently exists no absolute right to

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
ci4d6

26
27
28

November 2, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE