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)

Download PDF
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?