Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01849-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Ciotta
Petitioner
S. Frauenheim
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN CIOTTA,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01849-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 2)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2).

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 proceeding for financially eligible persons 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 1:15-cv-01849-AWI-EPG Document 6 Filed 12/17/15 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

2

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

counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01849-AWI-EPG Document 6 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 2