(HC) Dearman v. Kaplan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 JULIE KAPLAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 || right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 19 | (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 20 | of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 | In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 22 || appointment of counsel at the present time. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 | counsel (ECF No. 24) is denied. 25 || Dated: June 9, 2022 / hice ANKE) flo 26 CAROLYN K.DELANEY 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I/bh/dear2412.110(3)