Miale v. Superior Court of Tuolumne et al

Filing 6

ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (Doc. 5 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/30/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTIN ROSS MIALE,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

1:12-cv-1358-JLT (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.
SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE, et al,

(Doc. 5)
15
16
17

Respondent.
____________________________________/
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his lack of financial

18

resources as grounds therefore. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of

19

counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.

20

1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. §

21

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests

22

of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case,

23

the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the

24

present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for

25

appointment of counsel is denied.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28

Dated: August 30, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE