Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01204/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01204-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Sugrue
Respondent
Corey Darryl Wirsz
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

COREY DARRYL WIRSZ,

Petitioner,

vs.

JOHN SUGRUE, Warden,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:09-cv-01204-JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 4)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel for this habeas petition as well as

appointment of an immigration lawyer. (Doc. 4). Petitioner cites no reasons whatsoever in support

of his requests. 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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S.

889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (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 require the appointment of counsel

at the present time. 

///

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-01204-JLT Document 17 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 2
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

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

counsel (Doc. 4), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01204-JLT Document 17 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2