Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01676-0/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

RAMON BIRL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE )

HEARINGS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-1676 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #3)

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.), 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 finds Petitioner’s request is moot,

since the Federal Defender has already appeared on his behalf. The petition was signed by the

Federal Defender as Petitioner’s attorney of record, and the pleadings filed bear the following

caption: “DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Federal Defender, On Behalf of Petitioner RAMON BIRL.”

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01676-LJO -GSA Document 6 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 1