Barajas v. Virga

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 08/20/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

JOSE BARAJAS,
Petitioner,

11
12
13

1:13 -cv-02000 AWI SKO (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

(Document#21)

TIM VIRGA,
Respondent.

14
15
16
17
18

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no
absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v.

19
Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir.
20

1984). However, 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any

21
stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Section 2254 Cases. In the present case there are numerous issues, but there is no unusual
complexity, and there is no discovery pending. There are no extraordinary circumstances.
The Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the
present time. By separate order the Court has granted Petitioner a lengthy extension of time
in which to file a traverse.
///
///
1

1
2
3
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment
of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 20, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2