Jaime Orlando Padilla Garcia v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 10, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-01751·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME ORLANDO PADILLA GARCIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01751-KES-SKO (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v. [Doc. 3] ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 9, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Jaime Orlando Padilla Garcia v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Jaime Orlando Padilla Garcia v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al. (Jaime Orlando Padilla Garcia v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnny Mitchell v. Donald Wyrick
727 F.2d 773 (Eighth Circuit, 1984)
United States v. 93.970 Acres of Land
258 F.2d 17 (Seventh Circuit, 1958)