(HC) Hill v. Arnold

Opinion

TION ALONZO HILL, No. 2:17-cv-2200 TLN AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 22. In support of the motion, petitioner states that he anticipates being transferred back to California State Prison – Solano. He asserts that the transfer has and will delay his receipt of respondent’s filings due to the rerouting of mail and may deny him due process. See id. 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 request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. DATED: December 30, 2019 ~ Hthren— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE