Moore v. Harris

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/21/16. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROOSEVELT MOORE,

12
13

1:16 -cv-00895-JLT (HC)

Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.

14

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,

15

(Doc. 12)

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his lack of understanding of

18

the law as grounds therefore. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel

19

in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958);

20

Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. '

21

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of

22

justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the

23

Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present

24

time. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 21, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE