Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00722/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00722-0/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

LESLIE PAYNE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, )

COUNTY OF KERN, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00722-AWI-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 4)

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 does not find that the interests of justice require the

appointment of counsel at the present time. Petitioner’s grounds for requesting the appointment

of counsel is that petitioner is indigent and “has no visable [sic] means of retaining counsel on

appeal.” (Doc. 4). Indigence is a circumstance common to virtually all habeas petitioners;

however, it is does not, by itself, justify the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 4), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00722-LJO-TAG Document 6 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1