Rodriguez v. Lizzaraga

Full title: RICHARD C. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. JOE LIZZARAGA, Warden, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 2, 2015

2:15-cv-1154 JAM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)

Opinion

RICHARD C. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. JOE LIZZARAGA, Warden, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-1154 JAM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 2, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner has requested 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 the present time.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 10) is denied.