Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00436-0/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

CHRISTOPHER M. WILSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. K. SISTO, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-0436-AWI-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. Petitioner argues that he may need

counsel for an evidentiary hearing or to assist in conducting discovery. (Doc. 3, p. 4). 

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 (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. At this early stage of the proceedings, it cannot be

determined whether, at some later point, discovery or an evidentiary hearing will be necessary.

Should they become necessary, the Court will re-evaluate the need for counsel as required by the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

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

counsel (Doc. 3), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00436-MLH-CAB Document 5 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 1