(HC)Moore v. Sherman

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 MARQUIS DOMINIQUE MOORE, No. 2:19-cv-1131 MCE KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 V. ORDER 14 STU SHERMAN, 15 Respondent.

17 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 | of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

21 | 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.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of | counsel (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice.

25 || Dated: October 29, 2019 26 Aectl Aharon 27 KENDALL J. NE /moor] 131.110 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE