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
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?