1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, No. 2:24-cv-1822 SCR P 1] Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 WARDEN, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 17 | right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner,

, 460 18 | (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 19 || of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 20 || Inthe present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 21 || appointment of counsel at the present time. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for appointment of 23 || counsel (ECF No. 20) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 24 || proceedings. 25 || DATED: February 4, 2025 Kink 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE