Navarro v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 9 & 21 Motions to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/6/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 MARCO ANTONIO NAVARRO, Petitioner, 9 10 11 1:17 -cv-00223-MJS (HC) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. ON HABEAS CORPUS, (ECF NOS. 9, 21) Respondent. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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. The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this case at the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: 28 September 6, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?