(HC) Barrera v. Sherman

Opinion

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

10 RUBEN GABRIOLA BARRERA, 1:20 -cv-00913-SKO (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

13 STU SHERMAN, (Doc. #3)

14 Respondent.

17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no 18 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. 19 Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 20 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel 21 at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the 23 interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment 25 of counsel is DENIED. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27

Sheila K. Oberto 28 Dated: July 6, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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