(HC)Maksim v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility
This text of (HC)Maksim v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility ((HC)Maksim v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility) 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.
Opinion
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9
10 HAKOBKOKHVYAN MAKSIM, 1:25 -cv-00955-SKO (HC) 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE (Doc. 2) ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14 Respondent. 15
16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no 18 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. 20 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel 21 at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 23 Here, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of 24 counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 25
26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: August 12, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(HC)Maksim v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcmaksim-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-annex-detention-facility-caed-2025.