From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Espindola v. Gamboa

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 15, 2021
1:21-cv-01255-NE-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01255-NE-JLT (HC)

09-15-2021

ANDRES ESPINDOLA, Petitioner, v. MARTIN GAMBOA, Warden of Avenal State Prison, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOC. 12)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 13, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 12.) 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, Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Espindola v. Gamboa

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 15, 2021
1:21-cv-01255-NE-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Espindola v. Gamboa

Case Details

Full title:ANDRES ESPINDOLA, Petitioner, v. MARTIN GAMBOA, Warden of Avenal State…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 15, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01255-NE-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2021)