MULKEY v. LIZARRAGA, 2:14-cv-0407 LKK KJN P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140630a37
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District 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 justi
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District 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 justic..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District 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 (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
