(HC) Scott v. Fox ( 2019 )

1 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 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 | (Oth 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 | Inthe 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 motion for appointment of 24 | counsel (ECF No. 65) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 25 | proceedings. 26 | Dated: October 23, 2019 scot2687.110(9) Frees Aharon 28 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE