(HC) Vigil v. Lizarraqa

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIE PAUL VIGIL, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1048-WBS-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 2 and 15).

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 be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.

26 / / / / / / / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for || appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 2 and 15) are denied without prejudice to renewal, at the | earliest, after a response to the petition has been filed.

5 | Dated: October 20, 2020 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE