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)

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