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