Rodriguez v. Lizzaraga

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/1/2015 DENYING petitioner's 10 motion for appoinment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD C. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 2:15-cv-1154 JAM DAD P

ORDER

JOE LIZZARAGA, Warden,

15

Respondent.

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.

23

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

24

counsel (Doc. No. 10) is denied.

25

Dated: October 1, 2015

26
27
28

DAD:9:kly
rodr1154.110

1