Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01788/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01788-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Raye Randolph
Petitioner
James Walker
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD RAYE RANDOLPH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-1788 FCD KJM P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 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), Fed. R. Governing

§ 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. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:09-cv-01788-FCD-KJM Document 13 Filed 01/06/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel (Docket No. 9) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at

a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: January 6, 2010. 

/kly

rand1788.110(2)

2

Case 2:09-cv-01788-FCD-KJM Document 13 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2