Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01280-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

TODD GIFFEN,

Petitioner,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et. al,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01280-LJO-SAB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF No. 22)

On January 15, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 

22). On August 21, 2014, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s first motion for the appointment of

counsel. (ECF No. 6). On September 4, 2014, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s second 

motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12). On October 2, 2014, the undersigned 

denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for the appointment of 

counsel. (ECF No. 15). On October 22, 2014, the undersigned recommended that the petition 

for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as frivolous. (ECF No. 16). On December 11, 2014, the 

assigned District Judge adopted the findings and recommendation, and the petition was 

dismissed as frivolous. (ECF No. 18).

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting the findings and 

recommendation and dismissing the case is presently pending. There currently exists no absolute 

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 

Case 1:14-cv-01280-DAD-SAB Document 23 Filed 01/21/15 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

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, 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, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01280-DAD-SAB Document 23 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2