Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06067/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06067-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS A. CANEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD E. EARLY, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 02-6067 REC DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Docs. 35, 36]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 25, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing,

and a motion for the appointment of counsel. (Court Docs. 35, 36.)

In Findings and Recommendations issued herewith, the Court has denied the instant

petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits, and specifically stated that an evidentiary hearing

was not warranted. Therefore, because the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus can be

resolved without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner’s motion is denied.

With regard to Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Petitioner is advised

that there currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See

e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); th

Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 th

U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of

Case 1:02-cv-06067-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 06/02/06 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

27

28

2

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 would be served by the appointment of counsel, as

the instant petition is without merit for the reasons stated in the Findings and Recommendations

issued concurrently herewith. Accordingly, petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06067-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2