Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02006/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02006-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. D. Hartley
Respondent
Charles Singleton
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

CHARLES SINGLETON,

Petitioner,

vs.

J. D. HARTLEY,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:10-cv-2006 LJO JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 9)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his lack of knowledge of

the law and his lack of understanding how to cite cases. (Doc. 9). 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 (Doc. 9), is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-02006-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 1