(HC) Dearman v. Kaplan ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 19 right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 20 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 21 case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In 22 the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 23 appointment of counsel at the present time. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of 2 || counsel (ECF No. 17) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 3 || proceedings. 4 | Dated: March 30, 2022 Card ke Lg a 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 || imp: dear2412.110(2) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28