NELSON v. STOLC, 2:12-cv-0968 MCE DAD P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120711897
Visitors: 26
Filed: Jul. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court recently advised petitioner, 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 d
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court recently advised petitioner, 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 do..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. As the court recently advised petitioner, 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. 15) is denied.
Source: Leagle
