(HC) Bagley v. Ndoh

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 JAMES RAY BAGLEY, JR., No. 2:17-cv-2213 MCE DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 V. ORDER 14 ROSEMARY NDOH, Warden, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel because he is indigent. There | currently exists no absolute 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 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 appointment of counsel at the present time.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of | counsel (ECF No. 18) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the | proceedings.

26 | Dated: January 27, 2020 DB/Inbox/Routine/bagl2213.110 BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE