Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01407/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01407-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS ISACC SIMENTAL, No. 2:05-cv-1407-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

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 May 23, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which

contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:05-cv-01407-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Petitioner has filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations and a motion requesting the appointment of

counsel.

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.

Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel will be

denied. 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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 23, 2006, are

adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s May 31, 2006 motion for the appointment of

counsel is denied; and

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01407-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. This action is summarily dismissed because it plainly

appears from the face of the amended petition that Petitioner is

not entitled to relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DATED: June 14, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01407-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3