Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00749-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darral G. Adams
Respondent
Walter H. White
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

WALTER H. WHITE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DARRAL G. ADAMS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-0749-OWW-TAG (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3). There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Mitchell v. Wyrick, 

727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 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 require the appointment

of counsel. The only reason Petitioner articulates for appointment of counsel is “so that my interests

may be protected by professional assistance.” (Doc. 3, p. 14). That, of course, it true in every habeas

case; thus, it is not a sufficient justification for appointing counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 3), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00749-WQH -WMC Document 8 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 1