Boyrs v. Paramo

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/27/2018 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 34 request for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT R. BORYS,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1942 WBS AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

DANIEL PARAMO,
Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this habeas corpus action filed

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As of May 30, 2017, this action was fully briefed and submitted

18

for decision on the merits; it will be decided in due course.

19

Petitioner now requests the appointment of counsel. Federal law authorizes the

20

appointment of counsel at any stage of a habeas proceeding “if the interests of justice so require.”

21

See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. The court finds that

22

the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this stage of this proceeding. If it

23

becomes apparent, upon review of petitioner’s briefing, that he requires the assistance of counsel,

24

the court will then reconsider the matter sua sponte.

25

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

26

counsel, ECF No. 34, is denied without prejudice.

27

DATED: July 27, 2018

28