IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 17, 2012
ANDRE Z. LUCAS, PETITIONER,
RON BARNES, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel. 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. § 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 § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. As petitioner notes, while appointed counsel may be required "if an evidentiary hearing is necessary," if discovery is required, or if "required to achieve due process" (Dkt. No. 13 at 1), none of these circumstances are present at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's September 7, 2012 request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 13), is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion if "the interests of justice so require" at a later stage of the proceedings.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.