Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00353/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00353-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roxanne Ari
Petitioner
Mary 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

ROXANNE ARI,

Petitioner,

vs.

MARY LATTIMORE,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:10-cv-353-AWI-JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 14)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, asserting simply that she is indigent

and cannot afford to retain counsel. (Doc. 14). 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. 14), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00353-AWI-JLT Document 15 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 1