RODRIGUEZ v. LIZZARAGA, 2:15-cv-1154 JAM DAD P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151005a10
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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 ju
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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 jus..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 10) is denied.
Source: Leagle
