(HC) Eberly v. Neuschmid ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY ALAN EBERLY, No. 2:19-CV-1631-MCE-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion 19 for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 24). 20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 21 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. 22 § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice 23 so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does 24 not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 LUV VEY ENS IVINS OUI OI ee OY ov 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment 2 | of counsel (ECF No. 24) is denied. 3 4 | Dated: August 19, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 5 DENNIS M. COTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28