Espinoza v. McDonald
Filing
29
ORDER DENYING 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/4/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CORNELIO VEDOLLA ESPINOZA,
12
13
14
1:10-cv-01521-LJO-SKO (HC)
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
vs.
MIKE MCDONALD,
(DOCUMENT #26)
15
16
Respondent.
____________________________________/
17
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no
18
absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze,
19
258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984).
20
However, 18 U.S.C. ยง 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of
21
the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254
22
Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the
23
appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
24
Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
3em3ec
27
28
August 4, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?