Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00012-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvia Gonzalez
Respondent
Ramon Navarro Lupercio
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

RAMON NAVARRO LUPERCIO,

Petitioner,

vs.

SYLVIA GONZALEZ,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

1:08-cv-00012-LJO-JLT (HC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 26)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, contending simply that he cannot

afford to hire an attorney. (Doc. 26). 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. 26), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00012-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 1