Opinion
1:12-cv-01783-LJO-GSA (HC)
02-04-2013
LUIS ALBERTO VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS
MOTION
[Doc. #13]
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[Doc. #14]
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On January 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion entitled, "Ex Parte Motion for Liberal Construction and Interpretation Upon Petition, Motion and Etc. Submitted During and Throughout Pendency of this Matter and Petition." It cannot be determined what Petitioner is requesting in this motion. The Court is already under a duty to liberally construe Petitioner's pleadings, if that is what Petitioner is seeking. Insofar as the motion is completely vague, it will be denied.
Also on January 30, 2013, Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. 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:
1) Petitioner's miscellaneous motion is DENIED; and
2) Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE