(HC) Nixon v. Morales

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01531
• Status: Unknown

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, who is 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. 20. 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 renewed motion, Petitioner 24 states that appointment of counsel is needed because he is indigent. See ECF No. 20. The Court 25 finds that this reason does not warrant appointment of counsel. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment 2 || of counsel, ECF No. 20, is denied. 3 4 | Dated: January 22, 2025 Svc > DENNIS M. COTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28