Brooks v. Arnold
Filing
23
ORDER denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/13/17. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ROY LESTER BROOKS,
11
No. 2:16-cv-1689 JAM DB P
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
ERIC ARNOLD,
14
ORDER
Respondent.
15
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel based on the complexity of the issues
16
17
in this case. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas
18
proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. §
19
3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so
20
require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not
21
find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present
22
time.
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of
24
counsel (ECF No. 21) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the
25
proceedings.
26
Dated: January 13, 2017
27
28
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-habeas/broo1689.110
1
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?