Lopez v. Martel
Filing
11
ORDER DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/10/10. (Hellings, J)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. MICHAEL MARTEL, (Doc. 3) Respondent. ____________________________________/ Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing as grounds therefore Petitioner's contention that an evidentiary hearing is required and appointed counsel necessary in order to investigate various factual issues. (Doc. 3). 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.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 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. The Court has not conducted its preliminary screening of the petition and therefore any request for an evidentiary hearing to resolve purported factual disputes is premature. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required, the Court ANTHONY LOPEZ, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 1:10-cv-00390-JLT (HC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
will reconsider the need for appointment of counsel and Petitioner's may renew his request at that time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 10, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
