Pena v. Cate

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 9/11/12 DENYING without prejudice 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

MELVIN RICHARD PENA,

8
9
10

Petitioner,

No. 2:11-cv-1003 WBS JFM (HC)

vs.
MATTHEW CATE,

11

Respondent.

12

ORDER
/

13

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

14

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

15

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

16

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

17

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

18

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s August 6, 2012 motion

20

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

21

of the proceedings.

22

DATED: September 11, 2012.

23
24
25
26

/mp; pena1003.110