Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01528/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01528-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Rackley
Respondent
Lenel Randolph
Petitioner

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

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel in two separate motions. (Doc. 2 & 

14). 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); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 

773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. ' 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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 the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner's requests

for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LENEL RANDOLPH,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Respondent.

1:15 -cv-01528-JLT (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Document #2 & #14)

Case 1:15-cv-01528-AWI-JLT Document 15 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 1