Wright v. Hedgeph

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/20/11. The clerk of the court shall terminate docket entry #33. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DUNDELL WRIGHT, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 No. CIV S-09-3347 MCE EFB P A. HEDGPETH, Respondent. 13 ORDER / 14 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 15 16 U.S.C. § 2254. He has requested that the court appoint counsel. There currently exists no 17 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 18 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The court may appoint counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the 19 interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing 20 Section 2254 Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 21 appointment of counsel at this stage of the proceedings. 22 With his motion to appoint counsel, petitioner filed an opposition to respondent’s June 23 24, 2011 motion to seal on the ground that respondent had not provided him with copies of the 24 confidential documents to be filed under seal. Respondent subsequently filed a declaration of 25 service showing that such documents have now been sent to petitioner. Dckt. No. 34. 26 //// 1 1 Accordingly, and because the court granted respondent’s motion to seal on July 5, 2011, the 2 court will take no action in response to petitioner’s opposition. 3 Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that petitioner’s July 14, 2011 request for 4 appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall terminate 5 docket entry number 33. 6 DATED: July 20, 2011. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?