Arteaga v. State of California

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/17/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETER MANUEL ARTEGA, II,

12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-3181 GEB DAD P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

15

Respondents.

16
17

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

18

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460

19

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

20

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

21

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the

22

appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

23

petitioner’s December 9, 2013 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 33) is denied without

24

prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

25

Dated: December 17, 2013

26
27
/md; arte3181.110

28
1