(HC) Aroz v. Covello ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX AROZ, No. 2:21-cv-1934 TLN KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right 18 to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th 19 Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of 20 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. Thus, petitioner’s motion is denied without prejudice. 23 If petitioner requires additional time to access the law library or file his traverse to respondent’s 24 answer (once it is filed), petitioner may file a request for extension of time to do so. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 2 || counsel (ECF No. 24) is denied without prejudice. 3 || Dated: September 20, 2022 ' Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE / axoz1934.110 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28