(HC) Michael N. Chisom v. Madera County

Opinion

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

11 MICHAEL NARVELLE CHISOM, Case No. 1:21-cv-01368-SKO (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. [Doc. 2] 14 MADERA COUNTY, 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, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 19 479, 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 22 present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 23 counsel at the present time. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of 25 counsel is DENIED. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27

Dated: September 17, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27