Watts v. Adams

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/1/2010 ORDERING that petitioner's 18 and 19 motions for appointment of counsel are 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
GGH:mp; watt0277.110(2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHICO ROMERO WATTS, Petitioner, vs. D. ADAMS, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner has filed two motions requesting 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 May 20, 2010 and May 21, 2010 motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 18, 19) are denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. DATED: June 1, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER No. CIV S-10-0277 WBS GGH P