IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2011
LUIS ALBERTO LUNA, PETITIONER,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to order filed December 15, 2010, plaintiff is required to file a completed in forma pauperis application on or before January 13, 2011. (Dkt. No. 3.) Petitioner has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 6), and requests confirmation that his motion was filed (Dkt. No. 5).
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. Â§ 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 Â§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, particularly at this early juncture before receipt of petitioner's in forma pauperis application and the screening of his habeas petition, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's December 21, 2010 request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No.6) is denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the first (file-endorsed) page of petitioner's motion filed December 21, 2010 (Dkt. No. 6).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.