Sharonoff v. Warden

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/30/14 denying 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH A. SHARANOFF,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0794 LKK AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

WARDEN,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a habeas corpus

18

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 28, 2014, petitioner submitted a complete copy of

19

the state habeas petition he filed in the California Supreme Court. ECF No. 33. Accordingly,

20

petitioner has complied with this court’s order of July 17, 2014. ECF No. 32. Petitioner is

21

advised that the court will issue new Findings and Recommendations concerning his pending

22

motions for a stay and abeyance in due course.

23

Included in petitioner’s most recent filing is a request for the appointment of counsel. ECF

24

No. 33. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

25

See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A

26

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so

27

require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not

28

find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

1
2

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

3

counsel (ECF No. 33) is denied without prejudice.

4

DATED: July 30, 2014

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2