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)

Download PDF
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

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?