(HC) Nixon v. Morales

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRANDON NIXON, No. 2:24-CV-1531-KJM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER RAUL MORALES, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, who is 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 renewed motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 20.

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 renewed motion, Petitioner states that appointment of counsel is needed because he is indigent. See ECF No. 20. The Court finds that this reason does not warrant appointment of counsel.

26 / / / / / / / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment || of counsel, ECF No. 20, is denied.

4 | Dated: January 22, 2025 Svc > DENNIS M. COTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]