Dumont v. Borders

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/14/18 DENYING 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RALPH E. DUMONT,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1423 KJN P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

D. BORDERS,
Respondent.

16
17

On June 2, 2018, petitioner signed a request for the appointment of counsel. On June 5,

18

2018, the undersigned issued an order addressing respondent’s motion to dismiss, and granted

19

petitioner leave to file an amended petition, solely as to his second claim for relief. Petitioner was

20

instructed to amend his petition to include his second claim from the petition previously filed in

21

Case No. 2:13-cv-2541, and provided petitioner copies of the pertinent pages from the petition.

22

Petitioner’s amended petition is due on or before July 5, 2018.

23

As to petitioner’s request for counsel, there currently exists no absolute right to

24

appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

appointment of counsel at the present time.

1

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

2

counsel (ECF No. 22) is denied without prejudice.

3

Dated: June 14, 2018

4
5
6
dumo1423.110

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2