King v. People of the State of California

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/4/13. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK KING,

12
13
14

1:12-cv-02058-GSA-(HC)
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

(DOCUMENT #9)
15
16
17

Respondent.
____________________________________/
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, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage

21

of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254

22

Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the

23

appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

24

Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
23ehd0

February 4, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE