IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT,
TROY KING, MOVANT.
Movant has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel for motions to vacate. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 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), Fed. R. Governing § 2255 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
In addition, movant seeks the appointment of a forensic chemist and a fingerprint examiner to show that drugs found in one of the rooms of movant's house could be linked to someone else. He has not made a sufficient showing to justify the appointment. See United States v. Chase, 499 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Movant's request for appointment of counsel (docket no. 113) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and
2. Movant's motion for the appointment of expert witnesses (docket no. 111) is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.