Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01364/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01364-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Schultz
Respondent
Ernest Trevino
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

ERNEST TREVINO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-01364-OWW-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 8)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 8). 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 (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 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01364-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 1