Thomas v. Swarthout

Full title: LLOYD M. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent.

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2013

2:13-cv-1645 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013)

Opinion

LLOYD M. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent. No. 2:13-cv-1645 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 2, 2013

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, 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.

         Petitioner has also requested that the court order the Superior Court of San Joaquin County to provide petitioner with certain transcripts from his trial. If petitioner seeks copies of transcripts, he should request them directly from the Superior Court of San Joaquin County.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

         2. Petitioner's "request for production of competency proceeding transcripts" (ECF No. 11) is denied.