1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 TAN TRUNG VAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01810-JLT-SKO (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. [Doc. 6] 14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden of the California City Correctional Detention 15 Facility, et al., 16 Respondents.

17 18 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to

. 20 On December 18, 2025, Petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently 21 exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. 22 Heinze,

(9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick,

(8th Cir. 1984). 23 However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 24 of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 25 Cases. 26 In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the 27 appointment of counsel at the present time. The claims presented in the petition are clearly stated 1 or information be required after Respondents file their response, the Court will revisit the matter 2 and appoint counsel at that time. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of 4 counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 Dated: December 19, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27