Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01671/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01671-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE DANIEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner, 2:02-cv-1671-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

JOE MCGRATH, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 8, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 93 Filed 03/03/08 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

 Petitioner’s objections are styled “Objection to Magistrate Judge Findings and 1

Recommendation Request for Appointment of Counsel & Notice of Appeal.” Although it

appears likely, it is not clear from the body of the document that petitioner intends to appeal a

final judgment in this action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Accordingly, the court will not construe petitioner’s February 19, 2008 filing as a notice of

appeal to that court. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2). Petitioner is informed that he has thirty days

from the date this order and the judgment thereon are filed in which to file a notice of appeal

from the judgment entered in this action. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

2

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and a request for appointment of

counsel.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. Accordingly, the findings and recommendations will be adopted in full.

 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). 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), Fed. R. Governing § 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 will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2008, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and

3. Petitioner’s February 19, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied. 

Dated: March 3, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 93 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 2