Chavez v. Stainer, et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/1/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR CHAVEZ, 12 13 14 1:13-cv-00436 SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL vs. M. STAINER, (DOCUMENT #2; DOC. #1, p. 12) 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. In the present case, considering the claims raised and the stage of the proceedings, the 23 Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present 24 time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of 25 counsel is denied. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: 3em3ec 28 April 1, 2013 /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?