(PC)Wells v. Newsom

Opinion

WADE 2 □□ VEY EONS bo PNR ewey FP Oye At Vt 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:20-cv-1557 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 V. ORDER 14 | GAVIN NEWSOME, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel on the ground he is disabled. Petitioner’s 18 || request is premature because he has not yet filed a valid pleading in this case. See ECF No. 3. 19 | Moreover, this is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas (or putative habeas) 20 || proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). The interests of justice 21 | do not require appointment of counsel at the present time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; Rule 8(c), 22 || Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 || counsel, ECF No. 6, is DENIED without prejudice. 25 | DATED: August 12, 2020 . 26 Attten— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28