Kaplan
(HC) Dearman v. Kaplan
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P Petitioner, Vv. ORDER JULIE KAPLAN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 18 || right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th 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. 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 24 counsel (ECF No. 24) is denied. || Dated: June 9, 2022 / hice ANKE) flo CAROLYN K.DELANEY …