(HC) Bagley v. Ndoh

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES RAY BAGLEY, JR., No. 2:17-cv-2213 MCE DB P Petitioner, ROSEMARY NDOH, Warden, Respondent. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel because he is indigent. 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. Dated: January 27, 2020

DB/Inbox/Routine/bagl2213.110 BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE