Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00481/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00481-5/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

DANIEL SAPIEN LOPEZ, SR.,

Petitioner,

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPELL, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________________/

1:05-cv-00481-LJO-TAG (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 33)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 33). 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, Petitioner’s asserted reasons for the appointment of counsel are that

he is indigent and would benefit from counsel. These circumstances are true of nearly every

petitioner in every habeas case now before this Court. The Court find that the interests of justice

do not require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

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

counsel (Doc. 33), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00481-LJO -TAG Document 34 Filed 10/05/07 Page 1 of 1