Parvin v. Cate

Filing 20

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 01/06/10. (Plummer, M)

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
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN ALAN PARVIN, Petitioner, vs. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent. / Petitioner has filed a second motion for the appointment of counsel.1 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. As with petitioner's first motion, 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 December 21, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. DATED: January 6, 2010. ORDER No. 2:09-cv-2198 JFM (HC)

12/md; parv2198.110(2)

Petitioner's first motion was filed on August 31, 2009 and denied by order filed September

9, 2009.