(HC) Lemus v. Andes

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03286
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL R. LEMUS, No. 2:24-cv-3286 SCR P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHANCE ANDES, 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 The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel 22 at the present time. 23 To the extent that petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing, that request is denied without 24 prejudice. In accordance with Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court 25 will sua sponte consider whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted once petitioner’s habeas 26 corpus application has been fully briefed. 27 //// 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 2 || counsel and an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the 3 || motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 4 | DATED: January 13, 2025 fobe 6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28