(HC) Nixon v. Morales

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON NIXON, No. 2:24-CV-1531-KJM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAUL MORALES, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s renewed motion 19 for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 18. 20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 21 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice 23 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does 24 not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Petitioner's 25 prior motion for the appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice to renewal following 26 the filing of an answer. The docket reflects that an answer was filed on October 9, 2024. See 27 ECF No. 14. In the renewed motion, Petitioner asks that the Court reconsider the prior denial 28 and approve his original request. See ECF No. 18. In the original request, Petitioner stated 1 | “Requesting legal counsel" without providing any reasons warranting the appointment of 2 || counsel. The renewed motion will, therefore, be denied without prejudice to renewal 3 || accompanied by an explanation of the reasons Petitioner believes warrant the appointment of 4 | counsel in this case. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment 6 || of counsel, ECF No. 18, is denied without prejudice. 7 8 || Dated: November 25, 2024 Ss..c0_, ? DENNIS M. COTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28