(HC) Scott v. Fox ( 2020 )

wOAOe 6. □□□ VMEVOTUPERINUING MVVUPTOCII Yo POU Vetter Oy tM St 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | MICHAEL LADONTE SCOTT, No. 2:18-cv-2687 TLN KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 V. ORDER 14 | ROBERT W. FOX, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right 18 | to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th 19 | Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of 20 || the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 | In the present case, and in light of the pending findings and recommendations recommending that 22 | the petition be denied, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 23 | appointment of counsel. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 25 | counsel (ECF No. 85) is denied without prejudice. 26 | Dated: July 23, 2020 7 Foci) Aharon 28 | sconoe7 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE