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)

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