Opinion
1:13-cv-01049-AWI-JLT-(HC)
08-27-2013
JOHN RAYMOND GARCIA, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(Docs. 14, 16)
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, claiming in the vaguest terms that "the evidence at issue" involves "confidential information that can only be divulged to an attorney under protective order." (Docs. 14, 16). Petitioner does not explain, even in general terms, what kind of evidence he is referring to, nor why, in a habeas case such as this, where this Court is limited to reviewing the evidence already presented to the state courts, appointment of counsel would be required to maintain the confidentiality of evidence. 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. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE