White v. Adams

Full title: WALTER H. WHITE, Petitioner, v. DARRAL G. ADAMS, Respondent.

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

Date published: Jun 15, 2007

1:07-CV-0749-OWW-TAG (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2007)

Opinion

WALTER H. WHITE, Petitioner, v. DARRAL G. ADAMS, Respondent. No. 1:07-CV-0749-OWW-TAG (HC) United States District Court, E.D. California. June 15, 2007

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 3)

          THERESA A. GOLDNER, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3). There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Mitchell v. Wyrick , 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984); Anderson v. Heinze , 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

         In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The only reason Petitioner articulates for appointment of counsel is "so that my interests may be protected by professional assistance." (Doc. 3, p. 14). That, of course, it true in every habeas case; thus, it is not a sufficient justification for appointing counsel at this time.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3), is DENIED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.