Sanchez-Saragoza v. Peery

Filing 8

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/14/17. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MIGUEL CARRANZA SANCHEZSARAGOZA, Petitioner, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-0278 KJN P ORDER v. SUZANNE M. PEERY, Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 19 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 20 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 21 of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 22 In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 23 appointment of counsel at the present time. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 25 counsel (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice. 26 Dated: March 14, 2017 27 28 /sara0278.110 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?