(HC) Young v. Schuyler

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RONALD D. YOUNG, No. 2:24-CV-0157-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER CHARLES SCHUYLER, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion, ECF No. 2, for the appointment of counsel.

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 / / / / / / / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment || of counsel, ECF No. 2, is denied without prejudice to renewal, at the earliest, after a response to || the petition has been filed.

5 || Dated: January 17, 2024 Svc 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE