Orozco v. Harrington
Filing
41
ORDER denying 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/17/2013. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VALDO C. OROZCO,
Petitioner,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
13
14
1:10-cv-01599-MJS (HC)
KELLY HARRINGTON,
(Doc. 40)
Respondent.
15
16
_________________________________/
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.
19
Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir.
20
1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. ยง 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel
21
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
23
interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
92b0h
27
28
July 17, 2013
Michael J. Seng
/s/
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?