Aguilar

(HC) Ramirez v. Aguilar

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 21, 20231:23-cv-01538California220 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NARCISO RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01538-ADA-SKO (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. [Doc. 7] MARK S. AGUILAR, et al., Respondents.

16 Petitioner has requested 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. In the present case, given the premature nature of the petition, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.