Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00824/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00824-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Espinoza
Petitioner
Stanislaus County Sheriffs Department
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

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 (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 request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RAFAEL ESPINOZA,

 Petitioner,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS 

DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00824-NONE-JLT (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 2)

Case 1:20-cv-00824-NONE-JLT Document 10 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 1