(HC) Chavarin v. Holbrook

wOAOe 2 LOU EINUING Gor POC Ve Yh Vt 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 ARNULFO CHAVARIN, No. 2:19-cv-1521 TLN KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 DAVID HOLBROOK, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner 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 (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.

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 motion for appointment of | counsel (ECF No. 23) is denied without prejudice.

25 | Dated: May 5, 2020 %6 Aectl Aharon 27 KENDALL J. NE chav1521.110 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE