(HC) Monroe v. Phieffer

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA D’ANDRE MONROE, No. 2:19-CV-2174-MCE-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER C. PHIEFFER, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20).

20 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 here be served by the appointment of counsel.

25 Petitioner’s alleged difficulties in gaining access to the law library and desired legal resources does not constitute circumstances warranting appointment of counsel.

27 / / / / / / wOASe 2 LDV VE LET INS IVINS OUI OPC ee OY ove 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment | of counsel (ECF No. 20) is denied. The Court notes that the petitioner’s concurrent request for | additional time to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss was previously granted.

5 | Dated: June 12, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE