Barron v. Biter

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/3/2012 DENYING, without prejudice, petitioner's 17 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ISAIAH DUPRI BARRON, 10 Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 No. 2:12-0491 WBS DAD P MARTIN BITER, 13 Respondent. 14 ORDER / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of 16 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 20, 2012, petitioner filed a motion for 17 appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in 18 habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 19 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of 20 justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the 21 court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at 22 the present time. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s June 20, 2012 motion 2 request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 17) is denied without prejudice. 3 DATED: July 3, 2012. 4 5 6 7 8 DAD:12:kly barr0491.110 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?