Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00895-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his lack of understanding of 

the law as grounds therefore. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel 

in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); 

Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. '

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of

justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the 

Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present 

time. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROOSEVELT MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,

Respondent.

1:16 -cv-00895-JLT (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 12)

Case 1:16-cv-00895-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 1