(HC) Martin v. Johnson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] O.Z. MARTIN, No. 2:21-cv-1967 KIM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 R.C. JOHNSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 || right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 19 | (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 20 | of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 21 | In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 22 || appointment of counsel at the present time. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 || counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 25 || proceedings. 26 || Dated: January 3, 2022 Foci) Aharon 28 | manioer te UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE