(HC) Gray v. Asuncion

E.D. California

(HC) Gray v. Asuncion

DecidedMay 5, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00595

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Gray v. Asuncion ((HC) Gray v. Asuncion) 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) Gray v. Asuncion, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00595-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 7) 14 DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, )

15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 On May 3, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 7.) There currently exists 18 no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 19 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 20 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the 21 interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present 22 case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the 23 present time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: May 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 THOMAS EUGENE GRAY, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00595-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 7) 14 DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, )

15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 On May 3, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 7.) There currently exists 18 no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 19 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 20 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if “the 21 interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present 22 case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the 23 present time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: May 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Gray v. Asuncion, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-gray-v-asuncion-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack