Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06207/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06207-0/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

WAYNE PARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

BILL LOCKYER, et al., )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-CV-6207-REC-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

SECOND MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 19)

Petitioner is an inmate in state prison proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On August 4, 2005, Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 19). This

is Petitioner’s second such motion. On September 10, 2004, Petitioner filed a similar request

for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 4). On October 18, 2004, the Court denied that motion. 

(Doc. 7). At that time, the Court advised Petitioner that the Court did not find that the

interests of justice required appointment of counsel.

Petitioner has now filed this successive motion for appointment of counsel. The

Court will repeat the admonition it gave to Petitioner previously. 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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d

773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A

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.

Case 1:04-cv-06207-LJO-JMD Document 22 Filed 08/30/05 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

In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Petitioner's second request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 19), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06207-LJO-JMD Document 22 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2