*1 Case 1:06-cv-01721-VRW Document 17 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY LEROY WALLACE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ____________________________________) 1:06-cv-01721-OWW-TAG-HC
Petitioner, ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v.
(Doc. 14) WARDEN JOHN MARSHALL, et al.,
Respondent.
Petitioner has filed an amended motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 14). Petitioner contends in his motion that he needs counsel because of the complexity of the issues and because he suffers from a mental disability. (Doc. 14, p. 2). Petitioner provides no further details or support for his allegation that he suffers from a mental disability, nor does he explain the scope of his disability, nor does he indicate in any fashion how this disability might hinder his ability to represent himself.
There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 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), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 14), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner *2 Case 1:06-cv-01721-VRW Document 17 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2 j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2