Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00672/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00672-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roxanne Ari
Petitioner
Mary Lattimore
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

ROXANNE ARI,

Petitioner,

vs.

MARY LATTIMORE,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

1:10-cv-00672 LJO MJS (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. 16]

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, Title 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, 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: August 19, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

92b0h UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00672-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 08/20/10 Page 1 of 1