Tamplin v. Muniz
Filing
6
ORDER Denying Motion For Appointment Of Counsel (Document # 5 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/17/2012. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DWIGHT TAMPLIN, JR.,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
1:12-cv-1633-SKO (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
vs.
K. BROWN,
(DOCUMENT #5)
15
16
Respondent.
____________________________________/
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. Heinze,
19
258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984).
20
However, 18 U.S.C. ยง 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of
21
the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254
22
Cases.
23
At the present stage of the case before the Court, Court does not find that the interests
24
of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
25
ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated:
3em3ec
28
October 17, 2012
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
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?