Bunn v. Lopez et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/24/12 DENYING 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

REGINALD THOMAS BUNN, JR.,

11
12
13

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-11-1373 MCE DAD P

vs.
RAUL LOPEZ,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER
/

16

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court previously

17

advised petitioner, there currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

18

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.

19

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice

20

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does

21

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

22

time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of

23

counsel (Doc. No. 21) is denied.

24

DATED: May 24, 2012.

25
26

DAD:9
bunn1373.110(2)