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)

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. § 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