Voage v. Paramo

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/25/13 ordering that petitioner's 08/02/13 requests for appointment of counsel 9 and 10 are denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN SHAW VOAGE,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1342 AC P

v.

ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute

17
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 petitioner’s August 2, 2013 requests for

23
24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////

1

appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 9 and 10) are denied without prejudice to a renewal of the

2

motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

3

DATED: October 25, 2013

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AC:009/md
voag1342.110

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2