Vaughn v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/26/2017 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 19 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

MARK A. VAUGHN,

11
12
13

No. 2:16-cv-2384 JAM CKD P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

STUART SHERMAN,

14

Respondent.

15
16

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

17

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460

18

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage

19

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

20

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the

21

appointment of counsel at the present time.

22

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

23

counsel (ECF No. 19) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the

24

proceedings.

25

Dated: April 26, 2017

26
27

2/kly
vaug2384.110

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
1