(HC) Thomas, Jr. v. Sutton ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY THOMAS, JR., ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01409-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 11) 14 SUTTON, Warden, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 On October 30, 2020, Petitioner filed what is titled a traverse and motion seeking attorney. 18 (Doc. 11.) There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 19 See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 20 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of 21 counsel at any stage of the case if “the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing 22 Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the 23 appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 counsel is DENIED. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: November 2, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE