Dixon v. Rackley et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying 16 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/30/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

JOSEPH KEVIN DIXON,
Petitioner,

10
11
12

1:14 -cv-01149-AWI-MJS (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

(Doc. 16)

RON RACKLEY,
Respondent.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

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.
Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th
Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of
counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c),
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that
the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

October 30, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
1