Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00531/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00531-3/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

STEPHEN R. FEGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00531 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Docs. 12, 13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of

counsel. (Court Doc. 7.) Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying the appointment of counsel, filed July

17, 2006, and Petitioner’s motion for discovery and evidentiary hearing, filed July 21, 2006. 

(Court Docs. 12, 13.) 

Petitioner must establish that the Magistrate Judge’s order was “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law” as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

As stated by the Magistrate Judge, 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.

1958); cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, authorizes the

appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interest of justice so require.” See Rule

Case 1:06-cv-00531-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 09/19/06 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

8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In his motion, Petitioner claims that the appointment of counsel is necessary because an

evidentiary hearing has been conduct in regard to his discovery issue. (Motion, at 1.) As found

by the Magistrate Judge, the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of

counsel in this case, as the Court is concurrently adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation to dismiss the case as successive, and no evidentiary hearing or discovery is

warranted in this case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and motion for

discovery and evidentiary hearing are DENIED. (Court Docs. 12, 13.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00531-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2