Fisher
(HC) Bisel v. Fisher
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY EUGENE BISEL, Case No. 1:17-cv-00013-DAD-SKO (HC)
Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v. [Doc. 53] RAY FISHER, JR., Warden, et al., Respondents.
16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 28, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner submits a number of reasons in support of his motion. Petitioner states he has been unable to access the law library for several months. He states that due to Covid-19, only…