Pierce v. Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
ORDER Denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 04/22/2010. (Flores, E)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Respondent. 16 ____________________________________/ 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 19 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), 20 cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment 21 of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of 23 justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS 24 HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: ah0l4d April 22, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE vs. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, MICHAEL DAVID PIERCE, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCUMENT #9) 1:10-cv-00526-OWW-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?