Coronado v. Biter

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/09/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TIMOTHY CORONADO, Petitioner, 8 9 10 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. [Doc. 4] A. BITER, 11 Respondent. / 12 13 1:11-cv-01960-BAM (HC) Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 28, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. 15 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 16 See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 17 773 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at 18 any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing 19 Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would 20 be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for 21 appointment of counsel is DENIED. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ah0l4d December 9, 2011 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1

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?