Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00083/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00083-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Justin Cowan
Petitioner
J. Soto
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

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There 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). Though 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), here, the interests of 

justice do not require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, the Court 

ORDERS that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TYRONE JUSTIN COWAN,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SOTO,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00083-DAD-JLT (HC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 15)

Case 1:16-cv-00083-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 1