O'Neill v. State of California

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/9/2017 DENYING 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel Without Prejudice. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NEAL O’NEILL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-2094 MCE AC HC
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute

18

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460

19

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage

20

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

21

At this time, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the

22

appointment of counsel.

23

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

24

counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice, subject to a renewal of the motion at a later

25

stage in the proceedings.

26

DATED: November 9, 2017

27
28