Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00526/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00526-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Respondent
Michael David Pierce
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

MICHAEL DAVID PIERCE,

Petitioner,

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:10-cv-00526-OWW-SMS (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #9)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of 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 (9thCir.), 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 authorizesthe 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: April 22, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00526-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 1