Opinion
2:21-CV-1145-JAM-DMC-P
12-29-2021
JAMES STANLEY KOENIG, Petitioner, v. C. KOENIG, Respondent.
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 12.
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. Petitioner asserts eight claims for relief and concedes that Claim Eight is unexhausted. The petition is thus a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a mixed petition containing unexhausted claims and asserts that a stay to allow Petitioner to exhaust Claim Eight in state court is not warranted. Thus, the sole issue currently to be decided before the case can move forward in this Court is whether a stay is warranted. Given that this issue has been fully briefed, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require additional briefing on behalf of Petitioner by appointed counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 12, is denied.