Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01897/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01897-3/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON BASHFORD,

Petitioner,

vs.

D. SMITH, WARDEN,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:06-cv-1897-OWW -TAG (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 9)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel “to properly

respond to the government’s response.” (Doc. 9). 

On December 7, 2007, the Court ordered respondent D. Smith, Warden (“Respondent”)

to file a brief addressing the questions of whether Petitioner’s claims in the instant petition are

appropriate for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and if so, whether the petition should be

transferred to the sentencing court to consider the merits of the petition, i.e., to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. (Doc. 7). The Court’s December 7, 2007 order

also contains a briefing schedule requiring Respondent to file his brief within 45 days from the

date of service of the order. The order was served on December 7, 2007. (See docket entry dated

December 7, 2007). Consequently, Respondent’s brief is not yet due, and as of the date of this

order, it has not been filed. The instant motion is Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of

counsel. (See Docs. 5, 6). 

Case 1:06-cv-01897-OWW -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

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). However, Title 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case when “the interests of

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

Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at the

present time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel (Doc. 9), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01897-OWW -JMD Document 10 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 2