Watkins v. Knowles et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/8/2010 ORDERING that petitioner's 19 request for appointment of counsel is DENIED w/out prejudice. (Yin, K)

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
DAD:md:sj watk0363.110

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOEL KEITH WATKINS, Petitioner, vs. MIKE KNOWLES, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's June 1, 2010 request for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 19) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion, if appropriate, at a later stage of the proceedings. DATED: June 8, 2010. ORDER No. CIV S-09-0363 WBS DAD P