Hollis v. Chavez

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 9 & 10 Motions to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/16/2010. (Marrujo, C)

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. CHAVEZ, (DOCUMENT #9, 10) 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: 23ehd0 ROGER WAYNE HOLLIS, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:10-cv-1329 GSA (HC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

August 16, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE