(HC) Taylor v. District Attorney Office ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT TAYLOR, No. 2:23-cv-00460-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ECF No. 17 14 DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There is no absolute right to 18 appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 19 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 20 case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In 21 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.1 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 counsel, ECF No. 17, is denied without prejudice. 25 1 The court understands from petitioner’s filing that he may be seeking appointment of alternative counsel in a state criminal proceeding. It appears that petitioner’s panel attorney Peter 26 Wyatt was removed as his counsel in 2022, but Judge Davis re-appointed Mr. Wyatt for 27 petitioner’s upcoming trial. Petitioner asks whether this court can prevent Mr. Wyatt from representing him. It cannot. This court has no authority to remove counsel in an ongoing state 28 proceeding. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ December 7, 2023 Q_——_. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 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