Tampkins

2 OW UVM LYUOOTVEAINTTING IN RAVUUTIOCEIL be POO MOLE er FP Oye ft Vt 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL R. TURNER, No. 2:20-cv-1088 JAM KJN P Petitioner, V. ORDER C. TAMPKINS, Respondent. 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute || right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (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. Inthe present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15) is denied without prejudice. Dated: August 19, 2020 …