(HC) Martin v. Johnson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1] O.Z. MARTIN, No. 2:21-cv-1967 KIM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 R.C. JOHNSON, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner has 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 | 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.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the || proceedings.

26 || Dated: January 3, 2022 Foci) Aharon | manioer te UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE