(HC) Lizarraga v. Warden

Opinion

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

10 ALBERTO LIZARRAGA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00888-JLT-SKO (HC)

11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. [Doc. 11] 13 LEANNE LUNDY, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 17 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 18 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 19 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the 20 interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the 21 present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 22 counsel at the present time. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of 24 counsel is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: July 20, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE