(HC)Magee v. Sullivan

E.D. California

(HC)Magee v. Sullivan

DecidedDecember 21, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01553

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC)Magee v. Sullivan ((HC)Magee v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC)Magee v. Sullivan, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

11 LOUIS MAGEE, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01553-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 13) 14 W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, )

15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 On December 20, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 13.) There currently 18 exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. 19 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 21, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

11 LOUIS MAGEE, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01553-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 13) 14 W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden, )

15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 On December 20, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 13.) There currently 18 exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. 19 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 21, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC)Magee v. Sullivan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcmagee-v-sullivan-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack