From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandstrom v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 2, 2021
1:21-cv-01618-NONE-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01618-NONE-JLT (HC)

12-02-2021

STEVEN MICHAEL SANDSTROM, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 13)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On November 29, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 13.) 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

Sandstrom v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 2, 2021
1:21-cv-01618-NONE-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Sandstrom v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN MICHAEL SANDSTROM, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 2, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01618-NONE-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021)