Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00884/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00884-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent
Lewis Vernord Blakely
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

LEWIS VERNORD BLAKELY,

Petitioner,

vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:07-cv-00884 LJO TAG (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 23)

On March 31, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 23). This

is the second time that Petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Docs. 15, 17). There

currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson

v. Heinze, 258 F. 2d 479, 481 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 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

motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00884-CW Document 29 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 1