1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RAFAEL ESPINOZA, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00824-NONE-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 2) 14 STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS ) DEPARTMENT, 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )

17 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to 18 appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze,

(9th 19 Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick,

(8th Cir. 1984). However, Title

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of 21 justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court 22 does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. 23 Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: June 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28