(HC) Dearman v. Kaplan

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-2412 TLN CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER JULIE KAPLAN, 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 motion for appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 34) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the || proceedings.

4 | Dated: October 11, 2022 Card ke yy a 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY?

6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9} 1 10 dear2412.110(4) 1]