Xiong v. Biter

Full title: KOUA XIONG, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Warden, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jan 20, 2015

1:14 -cv-02078 AWI MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2015)

Opinion

KOUA XIONG, Petitioner, v. MARTIN BITER, Warden, Respondent. No. 1:14 -cv-02078 AWI MJS (HC) United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 20, 2015

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 10)

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Petitioner has 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 that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.