Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin R. Miale
Petitioner
Superior Court of Tuolumne
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

MARTIN R. MIALE,

Petitioner,

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:13-cv-00005-SKO (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT #2)

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, 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, it appears that Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies

as to his claims. The Court does not find that the interests of justice require 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: January 4, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

3em3ec UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00005-SKO Document 5 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 1