(HC) Bailey v. CDCR

E.D. California

(HC) Bailey v. CDCR

DecidedApril 29, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00696

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Bailey v. CDCR ((HC) Bailey v. CDCR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Bailey v. CDCR, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9

10 STEVEN DWAYNE BAILEY, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00696-JLT (HC)

11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. (Doc. 3) 13 CDCR,

14 Respondent. 15 On April 28, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 3.) There 16 currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, 17 e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 18 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the 19 appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See 20 Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find 21 that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 22 Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 29, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9

10 STEVEN DWAYNE BAILEY, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00696-JLT (HC)

11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. (Doc. 3) 13 CDCR,

14 Respondent. 15 On April 28, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 3.) There 16 currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, 17 e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 18 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the 19 appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See 20 Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find 21 that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 22 Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 29, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Bailey v. CDCR, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-bailey-v-cdcr-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack