(HC) Sharonoff v. Lizaraga

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 27, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01899
• 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 KENNETH ALLEN SHARONOFF, No. 2:21-CV-1899-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 JOE LIZARAGA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for the 19 appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2. 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 at the present 25 time. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment 2 | of counsel, ECF No. 2, is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to 3 | the petition has been filed. 4 5 || Dated: October 27, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28