Wilkinson v. Lizarraga
Filing
13
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/24/2017 DENYING without prejudice petitioner's 12 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
TODD M. WILKINSON
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-00606 GGH
ORDER
JOE LIZARRAGA,
Respondent.
15
16
Petitioner is proceeding in pro se with the above-entitled action. On May 17, 2017, he
17
18
filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 12. There currently exists no absolute right to
19
appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481
20
(9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C.
21
section 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the
22
interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
23
In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the
24
appointment of counsel at the present time. Respondent has only recently filed an Answer to the
25
Petition on May 4, 2017. ECF No. 10. As a result Petitioner’s request for appointment of
26
counsel will be denied without prejudice.
27
////
28
////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
3
4
5
Dated: May 24, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?