Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652-9/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 ALEJANDRO GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:05-cv-00652-LJO-TAG (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #32)

Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 32). The instant motion is

Petitioner’s fourth motion for the appointment of counsel in this action. (See Docs. 3, 15, 28, 32). 

As indicted in the Court’s three prior orders regarding Petitioner’s request for counsel to be

appointed to represent him in this action (Docs. 8, 17, 29), 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.

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

motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 32) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 33 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 1