Mancilla v. Harris

Filing 17

ORDER Denying 13 Motion for Appointment of Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/16/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

ANDREW MANCILLA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-00935-GSA-HC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
(ECF No. 13)
W.L. MUNIZ,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On September 24, 2014, this Court denied Petitioner’s first
20 motion for appointment of counsel. On October 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a response to the
21 Court’s order to show cause, and requested the appointment of counsel, which the Court will
22 treat as Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel.
23

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

24 See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d
25 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment
26 of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules
27 Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of
28 justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of

2 counsel is DENIED.
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 16, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2