Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02233/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02233-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. K. Sisto
Respondent
Teng Yang
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TENG YANG,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-08-2233 FCD KJM P 

vs.

D. K. SISTO, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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, noting that petitioner has now filed a traverse, the court does

not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present

time. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:08-cv-02233-JKS Document 66 Filed 08/17/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s July 30, 2010 request

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

of the proceedings.

DATED: August 16, 2010. 

1

yang2233.110

Case 2:08-cv-02233-JKS Document 66 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 2