Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00925/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00925-0/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

ROBERT CONNOR WRIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00925-OWW-TAG-HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 2)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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 (8th Cir. 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. In the present case, the Court does not find that the

interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Petitioner contends that

appointment of counsel is necessary because he lacks the financial resources to retain his own counsel

and because the issues in this case are “novel and complex.” (Doc. 2, pp. 1-2). Those circumstances,

however, are present in most habeas cases before this Court. Alone, they fail to present a compelling

reason for appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request

for appointment of counsel (Doc. 2), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00925-VRW Document 5 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 1