Arteaga v. State of California
ORDER denying 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/17/13. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PETER MANUEL ARTEGA, II,
No. 2:11-cv-3181 GEB DAD P
MARTIN BITER, Warden,
Petitioner has requested 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 December 9, 2013 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 33) is denied without
prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
Dated: December 17, 2013
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?