Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00745-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alicia Hanna
Petitioner
M. 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

ALICIA HANNA,

Petitioner,

vs.

M. LATTIMORE,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:10-cv-00745 JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 3)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, alleging a lack of training in and

understanding of the law. (Doc. 3). 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00745-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1