Shine v. Soto
Filing
16
ORDER DENYING 14 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/1/2014. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHANNON DION SHINE,
12
Petitioner,
13
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v.
14
1:14 -cv-00021-JLT (HC)
J. SOTO,
(Doc.14)
15
16
Respondent.
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, contending that the complexity of the
17
case requires appointed counsel. The Court does not agree. There currently exists no absolute
18
right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d
19
479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title
20
18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the
21
interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the
22
present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of
23
counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for
24
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated:
April 1, 2014
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
1
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?