(HC) Sandstrom v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 STEVEN MICHAEL SANDSTROM, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01618-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 13) 14 WARDEN, )

15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 On November 29, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 13.) There 18 currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson 19 v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). 20 However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 21 case if “the 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 counsel at 23 the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: December 2, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE