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