(HC) Baker v. Lizarraga

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TAURUS A. BAKER, No. 2:19-cv-0396 AC P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 14 Respondent.

16 Petitioner has filed a second request for the appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 11. In support of the motion, petitioner simply states that said appointment will “serve the interests of justice and judicial expedience [sic] and economy.” See id. at 2 (brackets added). No other argument is provided in support of the motion. See generally ECF No. 11.

20 There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

21 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.

24 Given the absence of information provided in support of petitioner’s request, the motion lacks merit. Moreover, respondent has not yet responded to the petition. Accordingly, it cannot be determined at this time whether the issues presented in this case are ones that might warrant the appointment of counsel. The interests of justice therefore do not require the appointment of counsel at this time.

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s second motion for appointment | of counsel (ECF No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage || of the proceedings.

4 || DATED: February 9, 2021 ~ 5 CtAt0r2— Lhan—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE