Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00001-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Washington
Petitioner
J. Woodford
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

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

J. WOODFORD, et al., )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00001-OWW-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

 

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel in his petition. (Doc. 1). Petitioner

provides no reasons why he should be appointed counsel. 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 would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 1