(HC) Johnson v. Anglea ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACKIE EDWARD JOHNSON No. 2:20-cv-1830 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 HUNTER ANGLEA, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 11). In support of the 18 request, petitioner points to the fact that he was asked to “pick a Magistrate Judge or United 19 States District Judge” to hear the instant petition, and that he knows nothing about the difference 20 between the two.1 (See id. at 1). 21 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 22 See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 23 authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 24 require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not 25 1 The court is prohibited from giving litigants advice. However, it is common knowledge that 26 district court judges appoint magistrate judges to cases and review their decisions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 631, 636. The powers of magistrate judges in relation to district court judges are detailed in 28 27 U.S.C. § 636. Petitioner having selected a district court judge to be the arbiter of this action (see ECF No. 11 at 1) means that the assigned district court judge will review the findings and 28 recommendations of the magistrate judge and make the final decisions in this matter. 1 | find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present 2 | time. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 4 | counsel (ECF No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of 5 || the proceedings. 6 | Dated: October 19, 2020 7 8 9 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 | pis:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS. PRISONER. HABEAS /john 1830.110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28