Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00667/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00667-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christian Pfeiffer
Respondent
Theodore Curtis Rowe
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

29

30

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

29

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE CURTIS ROWE,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, Kern 

Valley State Prison,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00667-LJO-SKO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 22)

As part of his objections to findings and recommendations recommending that the Court dismiss 

the petition for lack of jurisdiction, Petitioner, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, moves for appointment of counsel. In habeas proceedings, no 

absolute right to appointment of counsel currently exists. 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). Nonetheless, a court may 

appoint counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The Court finds no evidence that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at this 

time. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00667-LJO-SKO Document 23 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 1