McBride v. Cate
Filing
18
ORDER denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel and denying 16 Motion for discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 06/14/11. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
EUGENE JACOB McBRIDE,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
No. CIV S-10-3387 GGH P
MATHEW CATE,
14
Respondent.
15
ORDER
/
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, is proceeding with a petition for a
17
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a motion for the
18
appointment of counsel and a motion for discovery.
19
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas
20
proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.
21
§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice
22
so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does
23
not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present
24
time.
25
26
In his motion for discovery petitioner requests the reporter’s transcripts from
several pre-trial hearings to augment the record, but provides no specific reasons why they are
1
1
needed.. The court has already ordered respondent to provide any transcripts relevant to the
2
issues in this case with their answer. Docket No. 16. If the court requires additional transcripts,
3
they will be requested.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 15) is denied
6
without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and
7
8
2. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Docket No. 16) is denied.
DATED: June 14, 2011
9
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
10
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
GGH: AB
mcbr3387.ord
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
