Floyd v. Fox

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/6/2016 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 8 motion for appointment 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

JAMES FLOYD,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1778 KJN P

v.

ORDER

FOXX,

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 (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the

25

proceedings.

26

Dated: December 6, 2016

27
floy1778.110

28