(HC) Wolfington v. CDC

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BILLY THOMAS WOLFINGTON, JR., No. 2:24-cv-00529-WBS-EFB (PC) 1] Petitioner, 12 Vv. ORDER 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 4 CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

16 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.

20 | 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.

22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of || counsel (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the || proceedings.

25 || Dated: December 20, 2024 betel PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE