Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00353/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roxanne Ari
Petitioner
Mary Lattimore
Respondent

Document Text:

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

ROXANNE ARI,

Petitioner,

vs.

MARY LATTIMORE,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:10-cv-00353-JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel on the grounds that she is indigent. 

(Doc. 3). 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. In the present case, the

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc.

3), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00353-AWI-JLT Document 5 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 1