Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00059/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00059-1/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

ALONZO McKINNEY,

Petitioner,

v.

HEDGEPETH, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00059-GSA-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 2)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 24, 2014, Petitioner filed his petition in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 9, 2015, Magistrate 

Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California issued an order dismissing Petitioner’s 

first claim concerning prison conditions and transferring the action to this Court for 

consideration of the two claims challenging the execution of his sentence. (ECF No. 4).

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.

On December 15, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant motion for appointment of counsel. 

Case 1:15-cv-00059-LJO-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/15 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

(ECF No. 2). Petitioner requests counsel, but does not state any reasons as to why counsel 

should be appointed. Upon a review of the petition, the Court does not find that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

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

counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00059-LJO-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 2