Coronado v. Biter
ORDER DENYING 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/09/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. On November 28, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for 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 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 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 would
be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 9, 2011
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
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?