Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06176/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06176-2/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

ROBERT LEWIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:03-CV-6176-REC-TAG-HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 29)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, contending that he possesses only

a layman’s understanding of the law. (Doc. 29, p. 1). 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. Petitioner’s lack of legal training is a deficit shared by most, if

not all, of the habeas petitioners currently before this Court. Thus, in the present case, the Court

does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time.

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

(Doc. 29), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-06176-LJO-JMD Document 30 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 1