Bisel v. Fisher et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING 1 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/6/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 GREGORY EUGENE BISEL, Petitioner, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. 10 11 1:17 -cv-00013 SKO (HC) RAY FISHER, JR., et al., (Document#1) Respondent(s). 12 13 14 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 1 .

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?