(HC) Scott v. Fox

Opinion

wOAOe 6. □□□ VMEVOTUPERINUING MVVUPTOCII Yo POU Vetter Oy tM St 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LADONTE SCOTT, No. 2:18-cv-2687 TLN KJN P 12 Petitioner, 14 ROBERT W. FOX, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right 18 to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th 19 Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of 20 the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 In the present case, and in light of the pending findings and recommendations recommending that 22 the petition be denied, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 23 appointment of counsel. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 25 counsel (ECF No. 85) is denied without prejudice. 26 Dated: July 23, 2020 7 Foci) Aharon 28 sconoe7 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE